Rules and Regulations. Final rule

41,295 words·~188 min read·/register/2007/09/06/07-4330

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27983; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-192-AD; Amendment 39-15188; AD 2007-18-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Model Falcon 10 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to all Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Model Falcon 10 airplanes. That AD currently requires either revising the airplane flight manual

(AFM)and installing a placard in the flight deck to prohibit flight into known or forecasted icing conditions, or repetitively inspecting for delamination of the flexible hoses in the wing

(slat)anti-icing system and performing corrective actions if necessary. That AD also provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This new AD mandates the previously optional terminating action. This AD results from a report of in-service delamination of a flexible hose in the slat anti-icing system at a time earlier than previously reported. We are issuing this AD to prevent collapse of the flexible hoses in the slat anti-icing system, which could lead to insufficient anti-icing capability and, if icing is encountered in this situation, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Dassault Service Bulletin F10-313, Revision 1, dated May 10, 2006, as of October 11, 2007. On September 26, 2005 (70 FR 53540, September 9, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, Revision 1, dated June 27, 2005, including the Service Bulletins Compliance Card. On April 26, 2005 (70 FR 18282, April 11, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, dated February 25, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2005-18-14, amendment 39-14254 (70 FR 53540, September 9, 2005). The existing AD applies to all Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Model Falcon 10 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20293). That NPRM proposed to retain the existing requirements: Either revising the airplane flight manual

(AFM)and installing a placard in the flight deck to prohibit flight into known or forecasted icing conditions, or repetitively inspecting for delamination of certain flexible hoses in the wing

(slat)anti-icing system and doing corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to mandate the previously optional terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment that has been received on the NPRM. Request To Revise Paragraph

(l)of the NPRM The commenter, Dassault, notes an error in paragraph

(l)of the NPRM. As proposed, paragraph

(l)referred to credit allowed for a hose replaced before the effective date “of this service bulletin,” but should have referred to the effective date “of this AD.” We agree and have corrected this inadvertent error in this final rule. Additional Changes to Final Rule We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. In retaining the language from the existing AD, we inadvertently also restated an error in Note 3, which referred to “paragraph (j)(1).” There is no subparagraph in paragraph (j). We have revised Note 3 in this final rule to refer to “paragraph (j).” The NPRM restated paragraphs

(h)and

(j)from AD 2005-18-14. References to the effective date of this AD should be the effective date of AD 2005-18-14. These references have been clarified in the final rule. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average hourly labor rate of $80. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost AFM revision and placard installation (an option in AD 2005-18-14) 1 $0 $80 Up to 146 Up to $11,680. Detailed inspection (an option in AD 2005-18-14) 1 0 $80, per inspection cycle Up to 146 Up to $11,680, per inspection cycle. Borescope inspection (an option in AD 2005-18-14) 3 0 $240, per inspection cycle Up to 146 Up to $35,040, per inspection cycle. Hose replacement (new action) 8 880 $1,520 Up to 146 Up to $221,920. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14254 (70 FR 53540, September 9, 2005) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-18-08 Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA):** Amendment 39-15188. Docket No. FAA-2007-27983; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-192-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 11, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-18-14. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Model Falcon 10 airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of in-service delamination of a flexible hose in the slat anti-icing system at a time earlier than previously reported. We are issuing this AD to prevent collapse of the flexible hoses in the slat anti-icing system, which could lead to insufficient anti-icing capability and, if icing is encountered in this situation, 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. Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2005-18-14 Repetitive Detailed Inspections, or Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)Revision and Placard Installation

(f)Within 14 days after April 26, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-07-23, which was superseded by AD 2005-18-14), perform the actions specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD:

(1)Revise the Limitations section of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 10 AFM, and install a placard in the flight deck, to include the following information. “Flights into known or forecasted icing conditions are prohibited.” The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Install the placard on the pedestal in clear view of the pilot.

(2)Determine the part number of each flexible hose installed in the slat anti-icing system, perform a detailed inspection of the internal walls of the hoses for delamination, and perform any applicable corrective action, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, dated February 25, 2005. If the part number for any hose cannot be determined, before further flight, replace that hose with a hose having part number (P/N) FAL1005D. Any corrective action must be done before further flight. Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 flight cycles or 3 months, whichever is first, until the actions required by paragraph

(i)of this AD are accomplished. Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD has been included in the general revision of the AFM, the general revision may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”

(g)For airplanes on which the actions described in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD are performed, doing the actions described in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Once the initial detailed inspection specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is performed, the AFM limitation and placard required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be removed. Borescope Inspections

(h)For airplanes not operated under the limitation in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Before the next 10 flight cycles in which the slat anti-icing system is activated after September 26, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-18-14), do a borescope inspection of each flexible hose installed in the slat anti-icing system. Do all the inspections and any applicable corrective action (including replacing the hose with a new hose having P/N FAL1005D), by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, Revision 1, dated June 27, 2005. Any corrective action must be done before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 flight cycles in which the slat anti-icing system is activated. Doing this inspection terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

(i)For airplanes on which the actions described in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD are performed, doing the actions described in paragraph

(h)of this AD is terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Once the initial borescope inspection specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD is performed, the AFM limitation and placard required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be removed. AFM Revision

(j)For airplanes not operated under the limitation in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Before further flight after September 26, 2005, revise the Limitations section of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 10 AFM, to include the following information. “After each flight in which the slat anti-ice system is activated, inform maintenance.” The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Note 3: When a statement identical to that in paragraph

(j)of this AD has been included in the general revision of the AFM, the general revision may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. New Requirements of This AD Hose Replacement

(k)Within 330 flight hours or 7 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the flexible hoses installed in the slat anti-icing system with new hoses having P/N FAL1007, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F10-313, Revision 1, dated May 10, 2006. This replacement terminates the requirements of paragraphs

(f)through

(j)of this AD. For airplanes previously operated under the limitation in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: When the hoses have been replaced, the AFM limitation and placard required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be removed. Repeat the hose replacement at intervals not to exceed 700 flight cycles.

(l)Replacement of a hose before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F10-313, dated August 10, 2005, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(k)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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 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 approved previously in accordance with AD 2005-18-14 is approved as an AMOC for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information

(n)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0114, dated May 10, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(o)You must use the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Dassault Service Bulletin F10-313, Revision 1, dated May 10, 2006, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On September 26, 2005 (70 FR 53540, September 9, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, Revision 1, dated June 27, 2005, including the Service Bulletins Compliance Card.

(3)On April 26, 2005 (70 FR 18282, April 11, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, dated February 25, 2005, including the Service Bulletins Compliance Card.

(4)Contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 1.—Service Information Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision level Date Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, including the Service Bulletins Compliance Card Original February 25, 2005. Dassault Alert Service Bulletin F10-A312, including the Service Bulletins Compliance Card Revision 1 June 27, 2005. Dassault Service Bulletin F10-313 Revision 1 May 10, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17288 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27776; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-170-AD; Amendment 39-15189; AD 2007-18-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to all Airbus Model A318-100, A319-100, A320-200, A321-100, and A321-200 series airplanes, and Model A320-111 airplanes. That AD currently requires an inspection to determine whether certain braking and steering control units (BSCUs) are installed or have ever been installed. For airplanes on which certain BSCUs are installed or have ever been installed, the existing AD requires an inspection of the nose landing gear

(NLG)upper support, and corrective action if necessary; and a check of the NLG strut inflation pressure, and an adjustment if necessary. For some of these airplanes, the existing AD also requires a revision to the aircraft flight manual to incorporate an operating procedure to recover normal steering in the event of a steering failure. This new AD instead requires repetitive inspections of the NLG upper support, and related investigative/corrective actions in accordance with new service information; and removes the one-time inspection that was required by the existing AD. This new AD also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report of an incident where an airplane landed with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, and from additional reports of NLG upper support anti-rotation lugs rupturing in service. We are issuing this AD to prevent landings with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2007. The Director of the **Federal Register** approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 11, 2007. On November 30, 2005 (70 FR 70715, November 23, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2005-24-06, amendment 39-14386 (70 FR 70715, November 23, 2005). The existing AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-100, A319-100, A320-200, A321-100, and A321-200 series airplanes, and Model A320-111 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16749). That NPRM proposed to continue to require an inspection to determine whether certain braking and steering control units (BSCUs) are installed or have ever been installed. For airplanes on which certain BSCUs are installed or have ever been installed, that NPRM proposed to continue to require a revision to the aircraft flight manual

(AFM)to incorporate an operating procedure to recover normal steering in the event of a steering failure. That NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections of the nose landing gear

(NLG)upper support, and related investigative/corrective actions, and an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Support for the AD The National Transportation Safety Board supports the adoption of the AD. Request To Revise “Optional Terminating Action” Reference Airbus requests that we rephrase the heading of paragraph (l), “Optional Terminating Action,” of the NPRM. Airbus states that the terminating action for the issue addressed by the NPRM is not yet available. According to Airbus, the terminating action will include implementation of a new BSCU standard, which is currently being defined. Therefore, Airbus suggests that instead of the title “Optional Terminating Action,” we use a different title, such as “Action that Renders Void the Requirements of this AD,” or equivalent wording. Airbus states that it is correct to say that the actions proposed in paragraph

(l)of the NPRM would render void the requirements of this AD, and that no further action would be required by this AD. However, the terminating action for the issue will require installation of a new future BSCU standard. Airbus anticipates that it will require the installation of the future BSCU standard as a terminating action. We disagree with the request to rephrase the title of paragraph

(l)of this AD. We consider the phrase “Action that Renders Void the Requirements of this AD,” to be equivalent to the existing title “Optional Terminating Action.” Furthermore, this AD is fully consistent with European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)airworthiness directive 2006-0174, dated June 21, 2006, which is the parallel EASA airworthiness directive to this AD. If EASA supersedes airworthiness directive 2006-0174 for any reason, we will consider additional rulemaking. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Explanation of Editorial Change to Paragraph

(l)Paragraph

(l)of the NPRM referred to “standard L4.1 and L4.5.” That paragraph should refer to “standard L4.1 or L4.5.” We have revised paragraph

(l)of the final rule accordingly. This change will not affect accomplishment of the optional terminating action. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 720 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Records review (required by AD 2005-24-06) 1 None $80 $57,600. AFM revision (required by AD 2005-24-06) 1 None $80 $57,600. Special detailed inspection in accordance with new service information (new action) 1 None $80, per inspection cycle $57,600, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14386 (70 FR 70715, November 23, 2005) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-18-09 AIRBUS:** Amendment 39-15189. Docket No. FAA-2007-27776; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-170-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 11, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-24-06. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of an incident where an airplane landed with the nose landing gear

(NLG)turned 90 degrees from centerline, and from additional reports of NLG upper support anti-rotation lugs rupturing in service. We are issuing this AD to prevent landings with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, which 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. Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2005-24-06 Records Review

(f)Within 5 days after November 30, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-24-06), perform a records review to determine whether the airplane is equipped with or has ever been equipped with an enhanced manufacturing and maintainability

(EMM)braking and steering control unit

(BSCU)part number (P/N) E21327001 (standard L4.1, installed by Airbus Modification 26965, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1912) or P/N E21327003 (standard L4.5, installed by Airbus Modification 33376, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1261). Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006, is one approved method for doing the records review.

(g)For airplanes on which a records review required by paragraph

(f)of this AD conclusively determines that the airplane is not and never has been equipped with a BSCU P/N E21327001 or P/N E21327003, no further action is required by this AD. Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)Revision

(h)For airplanes that are not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD and on which Airbus Modification 31152 has not been incorporated in production (i.e., applicable only to aircraft with steering powered by the green hydraulic system): Within 10 days after November 30, 2005, revise the Limitation Section of the Airbus A318/319/320/321 Aircraft Flight Manual

(AFM)to include the following information. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM: “The ECAM message, in case of a nose wheel steering failure, will be worded as follows: —“WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT” for aircraft with the FWC E3 and subsequent standards —“WHEEL N.W. STEER FAULT” for aircraft with the FWC E2 Standard. ▪ If the L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT ECAM caution is triggered at any time in flight, and the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution is triggered after the landing gear extension: • When all landing gear doors are indicated closed on ECAM WHEEL page, reset the BSCU: —A/SKID&N/W STRG—OFF THEN ON • If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution is no longer displayed, this indicates a successful nose wheel re-centering and steering recovery. —Rearm the AUTO BRAKE, if necessary. • If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution remains displayed, this indicates that the nose wheel steering remains lost, and that the nose wheels are not centered. —During landing, delay nose wheel touchdown for as long as possible. —Refer to the ECAM STATUS. ▪ If the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution appears, without the L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT ECAM caution: —No specific crew action is requested by the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT ECAM caution procedure. —Refer to the ECAM STATUS.” Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph

(h)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. New Requirements of This AD Inspection Thresholds

(i)For airplanes that are not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD, at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a special detailed inspection (boroscopic) for broken or cracked NLG upper support lugs and missing cylinder lugs, and do all applicable related investigative/corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with Airbus Technical Note 957.1901/05, dated October 18, 2005; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006, may be used. Where the service bulletin specifies that restoring the NLG is necessary in accordance with Airbus recommendations, this AD requires restoring the NLG in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)(or its delegated agent). Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph

(j)or

(k)of this AD.

(1)Within 100 flight cycles following an electronic centralized aircraft monitoring

(ECAM)caution “L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT” associated with at least one of the following centralized fault display system

(CFDS)messages specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(i)“N L/G EXT PROX SNSR 24GA TGT POS.”

(ii)“N L/G EXT PROX SNSR 25GA TGT POS.”

(iii)“N L/G SHOCK ABSORBER FAULT 2526GM.”

(2)At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)Within 20 months, 6,000 flight hours, or 4,500 flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate, or the original French export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.

(ii)Within 6 months, 1,800 flight hours, or 1,350 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Repetitive Inspection Intervals

(j)For airplanes not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD that are equipped with EMM BSCU standard L4.1 or L4.5: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the earliest of 6 months; 1,800 flight hours; 1,350 flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles following certain ECAM cautions and CFDS messages, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(k)For airplanes not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD that are equipped with EMM BSCU standard L4.8 or a non-EMM BSCU: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the earliest of 20 months; 6,000 flight hours; 4,500 flight cycles; or 100 flight cycles following certain ECAM cautions and CFDS messages, as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” Optional Terminating Action

(l)For airplanes that are not specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD: Installation of an NLG with new upper support anti-rotation lugs and new cylinder lugs, or installation of an NLG that was never driven by EMM BSCU standard L4.1 or L4.5; combined with installation of an EMM BSCU standard L4.8 or a non-EMM BSCU; constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Do the installations in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual

(AMM)is one approved method for doing the installations. No Report Required

(m)Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006, specifies sending certain inspection results to Airbus, this AD does not include that requirement. Credit Paragraph

(n)Inspections done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Chapter 12, Subject 12-14-32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM, as revised by Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM Temporary Revision 12-001, dated November 13, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(i)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (o)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information

(p)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0174, dated June 21, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(q)You must use Airbus Technical Note 957.1901/05, dated October 18, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1310, dated February 8, 2006, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On November 30, 2005 (70 FR 70715, November 23, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Technical Note 957.1901/05, dated October 18, 2005.

(3)Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17385 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27975 Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-041-AD; Amendment 39-15187; AD 2007-18-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model P-180 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Several aircraft, at the factory, presented some debris in the hydraulic fluid of the steering system. Investigations revealed that some components of the steering system can be responsible for the fluid contamination because of an initial pollution on their manufacturing. If not corrected, a contaminated fluid could cause malfunction and a possible jamming of the steering system. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2007. On October 11, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 16, 2007 (72 FR 38800). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Several aircraft, at the factory, presented some debris in the hydraulic fluid of the steering system. Investigations revealed that some components of the steering system can be responsible for the fluid contamination because of an initial pollution on their manufacturing. If not corrected, a contaminated fluid could cause malfunction and a possible jamming of the steering system. The superseded Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2007-0088-E was previously issued to address the unsafe condition. The present Airworthiness Directive expands applicability of this AD to all P.180 ‘Avanti’ series aircraft and the list of defective components as listed in revision 1 of Piaggio Aero Industries Mandatory Service Bulletin No 80-0236. This AD also requires Temporary Changes to the respective Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)and Aircraft Maintenance Manual

(AMM)and introduces procedures to recondition defective units. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Comment Issue: Replacement of Nose Landing Gear One commenter suggests that the nose landing gear

(NLG)does not need to be replaced as required in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, but rather the steering actuator and manifold mounted to the NLG need to be replaced. We agree with the commenter that it is the steering actuator and the manifold that need to be replaced and not the entire NLG. However, the service bulletin requires removing and sending the original NLG to a Messier-Dowty engineer to do the actuator and manifold replacement. The service bulletin then requires installing a serviceable NLG. The replacement NLG could be the original, which has been rebuilt according to Annex 8 of Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007 (Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin No. P180-32-24, dated May 15, 2007), or it could be an exchanged NLG that complies with this AD. We have added a note to clarify that the NLG can be the same one that was removed if it has been serviced to comply with this AD. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **Note** within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 63 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $5,040, or $80 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 14 work-hours, for a cost of $1,120 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. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-18-07 Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.:** Amendment 39-15187; Docket No. FAA-2007-27975; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-041-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective October 11, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model P-180 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 32: Landing Gear. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Several aircraft, at the factory, presented some debris in the hydraulic fluid of the steering system. Investigations revealed that some components of the steering system can be responsible for the fluid contamination because of an initial pollution on their manufacturing. If not corrected, a contaminated fluid could cause malfunction and a possible jamming of the steering system. The superseded Airworthiness Directive

(AFM)and Aircraft Maintenance Manual

(AMM)and introduces procedures to recondition defective units. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)Within the next 30 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after October 11, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) or 30 days after October 11, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the identification of the steering actuator and the steering manifold installed on the airplane following Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007.

(2)If any steering actuator listed in annex 7.1 or manifold listed in annex 7.2 of Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007, is found in the inspection per paragraph (f)(1) of this AD:

(i)Before further flight after the inspection per paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, insert Temporary Change 3, issued March 15, 2007, into the LIMITATIONS section of Report 6591 (the airplane flight manual (AFM)) for P-180 Avanti Aircraft or Temporary Change 2, issued March 15, 2007, into the LIMITATIONS section of Report 180-MAN-0010-01100 (the AFM) for P-180 Avanti II aircraft. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do this action. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

(ii)Within the next 600 hours TIS after October 11, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) or 12 months after October 11, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace the nose landing gear

(NLG)following Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007. Note 1: The replacement NLG could be the same unit that was removed from the aircraft and serviced in accordance with Annex 8 of Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007 (Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin No. P180-32-24, dated May 15, 2007), or it could be a different NLG that complies with this AD.

(iii)After replacement of the NLG per paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, remove the steering system temporary limitations from the LIMITATIONS section of the AFM.

(3)Before further flight after accomplishment of the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do not install any steering actuator listed in annex 7.1 or manifold listed in annex 7.2 of Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007. Note 2: We encourage you to incorporate Temporary Revision 1 into the maintenance program (aircraft maintenance manual

(AMM)P.180 Avanti report 9066) or Temporary Revision 11 into the maintenance program (AMM P.180 Avanti II report 180-MAN-0200-01105). The temporary revisions require confirmation that the steering manifold and steering actuator are compliant with Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI requires the initial inspection action within 5 hours TIS. We consider 5 hours TIS an urgent safety of flight compliance time, and we do not consider this unsafe condition to be an urgent safety of flight condition. Because we do not consider this unsafe condition to be an urgent safety of flight condition, we issued this action through the normal notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)AD process followed by this final rule. The initial compliance time of 30 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, is an adequate compliance time for this AD action and met the FAA requirements for an NPRM followed by a final rule. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards 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: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

(816)329-4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120 0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Emergency Airworthiness Directive EAD No: 2007-0147-E, dated May 22, 2007; and Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80-0236 Rev. 1, dated May 15, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.a., Via Cibrario, 4—16154 Genoa, Italy; telephone +39 010 06481 741; fax: +39 010 6481 309; e-mail: MMicheli *@piaggioaero.it.*

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 24, 2007. Brian A. Yanez, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17304 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30567; Amdt. No. 3233] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This Rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective September 6, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *Availability* —All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit *nfdc.faa.gov* to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry. J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A. The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the SIAPs, the associated Takeoff Minimums,and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center

(FDC)Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided. Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC on August 24, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 27 SEP 2007 San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, RNAV

(GPS)X RWY 10R, Orig-A Valdosta, GA, Valdosta Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 6 Valdosta, GA, Valdosta Rgnl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 1 Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 3, Amdt 4, ILS RWY 3 (CAT II), ILS RWY 3 (CAT III) Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 3, Amdt 2 Laconia, NH, Laconia Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Effective 25 OCT 2007 Kobuk, AK, Kobuk, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 9, Orig Kobuk, AK, Kobuk, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Kobuk, AK, Kobuk, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Siloam Springs, AR, Smith Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Siloam Springs, AR, Smith Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig Siloam Springs, AR, Smith Field, VOR-A, Amdt 9 Siloam Springs, AR, Smith Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Stuttgart, AR, Stuttgart AR, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Amdt 1 St. Johns, AZ, St. Johns Industrial Air Park, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 32, Orig-A Los Angeles, CA, Los Angeles Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 25L, Amdt 1A San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Y RWY 28R, Orig-B Middletown, DE, Summit, NDB-A, Amdt 7 Sebring, FL, Sebring Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Tallahassee, FL, Tallahassee RGNL, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Cartersville, GA, Cartersville, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Jasper, GA, Pickens County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16, Orig Jasper, GA, Pickens County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Orig Jasper, GA, Pickens County, GPS RWY 34, Orig, CANCELLED Jasper, GA, Pickens County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Fairfield, IA, Fairfield Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Amdt 2 Fairfield, IA, Fairfield Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Amdt 1 Fairfield, IA, Fairfield Muni, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 9 Emporia, KS, Emporia Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 1, Orig Emporia, KS, Emporia Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 19, Orig Emporia, KS, Emporia Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 14 Emporia, KS, Emporia Muni, GPS RWY 01, Orig, CANCELLED Emporia, KS, Emporia Muni, GPS RWY 19, Orig, CANCELLED Emporia, KS, Emporia Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig McPherson, KS, McPherson, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig McPherson, KS, McPherson, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig McPherson, KS, McPherson, GPS RWY 18, Orig, CANCELLED McPherson, KS, McPherson, GPS RWY 36, Amdt 1, CANCELLED McPherson, KS, McPherson, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Amdt 1 Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Amdt 1 Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Chatham, MA, Chatham Municipal, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Biddeford, ME, Biddeford Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Frenchville, ME, Northern Aroostook Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Portland, ME, Portland Intl Jetport, RADAR-1, Orig 28, CANCELLED Frankfort, MI, Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 15, Amdt 1 Frankfort, MI, Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 33, Amdt 1 Frankfort, MI, Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 1 Fremont, MI, Fremont Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Amdt 1 Fremont, MI, Fremont Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Amdt 1 Bay St Louis, MS, Stennis Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 18, Orig Bay St Louis, MS, Stennis Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 36, Orig Bay St Louis, MS, Stennis Intl, VOR-A, Amdt 7 Bay St Louis, MS, Stennis Intl, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 18, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED Bay St Louis, MS, Stennis Intl, GPS RWY 36, Orig-B, CANCELLED Bay St Louis, MS, Stennis Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Raymond, MS, John Bell Williams, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 12, Amdt 1 Raymond, MS, John Bell Williams, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, Amdt 1 Raymond, MS, John Bell Williams, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Erwin, NC, Harnett County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Amdt 2 Erwin, NC, Harnett County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Amdt 2 Kinston, NC, Kinston Rgnl Jetport at Stallings Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Amdt 2 Kinston, NC, Kinston Rgnl Jetport at Stallings Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 23, Amdt 2 Kinston, NC, Kinston Rgnl Jetport at Stallings Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Nashua, NH, Boire Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Albany, NY, Albany Intl, COPTER ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 1, Amdt 1 Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Lebanon, OH, Lebanon-Warren County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 19, Amdt 1 Clinton, OK, Clinton Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Amdt 1 Clinton, OK, Clinton Regional, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Amdt 2 Clinton, OK, Clinton Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Harrisburg, PA, Harrisburg Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7 Anderson, SC, Anderson Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 5, Amdt 1A Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 1G Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1D Covington, TN, Covington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Lexington-Parsons, TN, Beech River Regional, VOR-A, Orig-A Brownfield, TX, Terry County, NDB RWY 2, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED Denton, TX, Denton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Auburn, WA, Auburn Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, ORIG Auburn, WA, Auburn Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Port Angeles, WA, William R Fairchild Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 8, Orig Port Angeles, WA, William R Fairchild Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 2 Port Angeles, WA, William R Fairchild Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Baraboo, WI, Baraboo Wisconsin Dells, LOC/DME RWY 1, Orig Baraboo, WI, Baraboo Wisconsin Dells, VOR-A, Amdt 12 Boscobel, WI, Boscobel, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Regional, LOC RWY 27, Orig Middleton, WI, Middleton Muni-Morey Field, LOC/DME RWY 10, Orig Phillips, WI, Price County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 1, Orig Phillips, WI, Price County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 19, Orig Phillips, WI, Price County, GPS RWY 1, Orig, CANCELLED Phillips, WI, Price County, GPS RWY 19, Orig, CANCELLED Gillette, WY, Gillette-Campbell County, VOR/DME RWY 16, Orig Gillette, WY, Gillette-Campbell County, VOR RWY 16, Amdt 7, CANCELLED Wheatland, WY, Phifer Airfield, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Wheatland, WY, Phifer Airfield, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Effective 20 DEC 2007 Monee, IL, Bult Field, VOR OR GPS RWY 5, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Ann Arbor, MI, Ann Arbor Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Effective 14 FEB 2008 Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, Orig-A [FR Doc. E7-17345 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30568; Amdt. No. 3234] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding of new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective September 6, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *Availability* —All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit *nfdc.faa.gov* to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:

(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs. The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2007. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, LDA w/GS, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, MLS, TLS, GLS, WAAS PA, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, § 97.37 Takeoff Minima and Obstacle Departure Procedures. Identified as follows: * * * Effective Upon Publication FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 07/23/07 CO Cortez Cortez Muni 7/9598 TKOF MNMS & (OBSTACLE) DP, AMDT 3. 08/10/07 NY Plattsburgh Plattsburgh Intl 7/2234 RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, AMDT 1. 08/10/07 NY Plattsburgh Plattsburgh Intl 7/2233 VOR/DME RWY 35, ORIG-A. 08/10/07 NY Plattsburgh Plattsburgh Intl 7/2232 ILS or LOC/DME RWY 35, ORIG. 08/10/07 NY Plattsburgh Plattsburgh Intl 7/2229 RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, AMDT 1. 08/10/07 NY Plattsburgh Plattsburgh Intl 7/2227 ILS or LOC RWY 17, AMDT 1C. 08/13/07 AL Gadsden Northeast Alabama Regional 7/2668 GPS RWY 24, ORIG-A. 08/13/07 CA Santa Monica Santa Monica Muni 7/2605 VOR or GPS-A, AMDT 10B. 08/14/07 AK Palmer Palmer Muni 7/2976 TKOF MNMS & (OBSTACLE) DP, ORIG. 08/15/07 DC Washington Ronald Reagan Washington Natl 7/3124 VOR/DME or GPS RWY 19, AMDT 9A. [FR Doc. E7-17359 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404, 405 and 416 [Docket No. SSA 2007-0032] RIN 0960-AG47 Amendments to the Quick Disability Determination Process AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending our regulations to extend the quick disability determination process (QDD), which is operating now in the Boston region, to all of the State disability determination services (DDSs). We also are removing from the QDD process the existing requirements that each State DDS maintain a separate QDD unit and that each case referred under QDD be adjudicated within 20 days. These actions stem from our continuing effort to improve our disability adjudication process. DATES: This rule is effective September 6, 2007. State agencies outside of the Boston region must notify SSA of the date by which they will be ready to accept QDD referrals. That date should be no earlier than October 9, 2007 and must be no later than March 4, 2008. State agencies must be ready to process claims referred under this rule no later than March 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vince Sabatino, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,

(410)966-8331 for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Introduction We are making final the rule we proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)published in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2007 at 72 FR 37496. We provide a summary of the provisions of the final rule below. We then provide a summary of the public comments and our reasons for adopting or not adopting the recommendations in the summaries of the comments in the section, “Public Comments.” The text of the final rule follows the preamble. Quick Disability Determinations We are dedicated to providing high-quality service to the American public. When we announced changes in March 2006 to our administrative review process for initial disability claims, we explained that we expected that the changes would improve disability service. Our commitment to continuous improvement in the way we process disability claims did not end with the publication of those rules as we continually explore ways to improve service to some of the most vulnerable in our society. We nevertheless face significant challenges now and in the foreseeable future in our ability to provide the level of service that disability benefit claimants deserve because of the increased complexity of and growth in claims for those benefits. Consequently, we are making modifications to our administrative review process that will further help us provide accurate and timely service to claimants for Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income payments based on disability or blindness. In early spring 2006, we published a final rule in which we laid out changes to the administrative review process for initial disability claims. We expected that the changes would “improve the accuracy, consistency, and timeliness of decision-making throughout the disability determination process.” 71 FR 16424 (March 31, 2006). We planned a gradual roll-out of the changes so that we could test them and their effect on the disability process overall. As we explained then, “Gradual implementation will allow us to monitor the effects that our changes are having on the entire disability determination process.* * * We will carefully monitor the implementation process in the Boston region and quickly address any problems that may arise.” 71 FR at 16440-41. Having thoroughly reviewed the initial determination level of that process, we have concluded that we need to modify some of the changes made last spring. The changes in the March 2006 final rule included establishing, in the Boston region, an initial-determination-level process to identify and accelerate the adjudication of the claims of persons who have a “high degree of probability” of being disabled, where there was an expectation that the claimant's “allegations will be easily and quickly verified * * *.” 20 CFR 405.101-.110 (2006). We refer to this as the Quick Disability Determination

(QDD)process. Under QDD, a predictive model analyzes specific elements of data within the electronic claims file to identify claims where there is a high potential that the claimant is disabled and where evidence of the claimant's allegations can be quickly and easily obtained. Those claims are then sent to a separate QDD unit in the State agency, where experienced disability examiners review the claims on an expedited basis. The QDD process in essence is a workload triaging tool that helps identify, in an automated fashion, claims where the disability should be easy to verify. This process has been working quite well. Because our experience with QDD has been very favorable, has proven to be of significant benefit to those claimants who have been affected by it, has been well-received by the State agencies in the Boston region, and has shown that there are no significant administrative costs associated with it, we are accelerating our implementation of the QDD process and extending QDD to all States. - Nevertheless, in order to improve the efficiencies that we have seen by using the QDD process, we are modifying those aspects of the QDD process that have served as a barrier to the type of outstanding public service that we strive to provide. These modifications will give State agencies greater flexibility in managing their QDD workloads. Specifically, we are eliminating the requirement that QDD claims be adjudicated within 20 days of receipt in the State agency and removing the performance standard and sanction provisions related to that 20-day adjudication requirement. We also are eliminating the requirement that separate QDD units be established within the State agencies. The QDD rules published in 2006 required the State agency to adjudicate any claim referred to it under QDD within 20 days of the date the claim was received in the QDD unit; any QDD claim not decided within this time frame had to be returned by the QDD unit for regular processing in the State agency. We are eliminating this 20-day requirement for three reasons. First, the early information concerning processing times for QDD claims is quite promising. The average QDD processing time for the Boston region State agencies has been approximately 12 days. For a large majority of the cases, they have processed claims selected for QDD in 9 days or less, and only a small minority of the claims exceeded the 20-day threshold. Given this experience, we are confident that the State agencies will continue to process the vast majority of QDD claims within 20 days. Eliminating the 20-day requirement will give the State agencies more flexibility in managing this workload. Second, even where the processing time goes beyond 20 days, we believe disability claimants will be better served and the State agencies' resources will be better utilized by allowing the QDD examiner to complete the work on the claim, rather than requiring the examiner to return the claim for regular processing in the State agency. Third, we are concerned that the need to obtain evidence within the 20-day period may unduly burden the medical and other providers who submit that evidence to us, and we have reports of some resistance from health care providers stemming from efforts to satisfy the 20-day deadline. In turn, delays in obtaining the evidence might cause an increasing number of otherwise suitable claims to be removed from the QDD process because of the 20-day rule. Though we are eliminating the 20-day adjudication requirement to give State agencies greater flexibility, we still believe that State agencies should strive to adjudicate any claim referred under QDD within 20 days. We will gather data in order to monitor the performance of State agencies with these claims. SSA currently shares this information with appropriate oversight agencies and will continue to do so. We will consider broadly or selectively reinstituting a formal time deadline, if warranted. Our second change to the QDD rules removes the requirement that State agencies create separate QDD units to handle the QDD claims we refer. Our intent when we created that requirement was to ensure that QDD claims were processed by individuals with the knowledge, training, and experience to effectively carry out the QDD function and to ensure that they could be held accountable for performing this important task. 71 FR at 16429. At the same time, we recognized the State agencies' need for flexibility in handling their workloads. 71 FR at 16429. Now that we have some experience with the QDD process, we believe the requirement of a separate QDD unit in each DDS is not necessary. Particularly in smaller States, we believe the requirement of a separate QDD unit may unnecessarily restrict the flexibility the State agency needs to best address its workloads. Therefore, we are eliminating the requirement that State agencies create a separate QDD unit. We will retain the existing requirement that all QDD claims be handled by designated disability examiners who have the knowledge, training, and experience to effectively carry out the QDD process. We believe this is sufficient to afford QDD cases the proper level of attention and accountability. In light of these considerations, we are amending our regulations to require all State agencies that perform disability determinations for us to handle claims we refer to them under QDD and to remove from the QDD rules the 20-day performance standard and the separate unit requirements discussed above. In addition, because we are accelerating our nationwide roll-out of the QDD process independent of the other changes in the March 2006 final rules, we are moving the substantive QDD rules from part 405 of our regulations to part 404, subpart Q, and part 416, subpart J, which contain the provisions covering the State agency determination process. State agencies within the Boston region are already processing cases under QDD, and the changes we are making to the QDD process will apply to those State agencies immediately. However, we recognize that State agencies newly affected by this accelerated roll-out of the QDD process will need a reasonable time to establish QDD procedures and make any needed software modifications. Some State agencies may also need time to satisfy collective bargaining obligations. Therefore, we are allowing the State agencies outside of the Boston region additional time to prepare for the implementation of the QDD process. Each newly affected State agency must notify us of the date by which the State agency will be ready to accept QDD referrals. That date should be no earlier than 30 days from the date of publication of this rule and must be no later than 180 days from its publication. We will not refer any claims to a State agency outside the Boston region for processing under QDD until the earlier of the date that agency has notified us it will be ready to accept and process QDD referrals or the date 180 days from the publication of this final rule. Notices of Initial Determinations In this rule we also are revising the provisions in parts 404, 405 and 416 of our regulations that describe the contents of the notices we send to inform claimants of our initial determinations on our claims. The current regulatory provisions, while not substantively inconsistent with one another, are phrased differently. In order to avoid any unintended suggestion that we apply different standards when drafting the notices to which these various sections apply, we are revising the language to be consistent in all three sections. We wish to emphasize that we are not in any way changing the substance of what must be in our notices of initial determination, but rather are simply adopting more uniform language based on the statutory requirements in sections 205(b)(1), 205(s) and 1631(c)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (Act). Public Comments In the NPRM we published on July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37496), we provided the public with a 30-day period in which to comment. That comment period ended on August 9, 2007. We received timely comments from 21 individuals and organizations. We carefully considered all the comments. Because some of the comments were lengthy, we have summarized the comments. In addition, some of the comments did not relate to the Quick Disability Determination process. We have provided responses to each significant issue raised by commenters that was within the scope of this rule. *Comment:* Many commenters expressed support for the proposed expansion of the QDD process and indicated that it will help alleviate delays in receiving disability determinations. However, several commenters expressed a concern that accelerating decisions at the initial level will increase the pending caseloads at the subsequent levels of our administrative adjudicative process. *Response:* We agree that improving our performance at the initial level, as these commenters recognized QDD would do, is only one part of the changes we need to make, and we want to assure the public that we are looking at a number of other areas as well. We have a number of initiatives underway, including proposals that will improve service at the reconsideration, hearings, and appeals levels of our administrative adjudicative process. We believe those other activities will address the commenters' concerns about processing times at the subsequent levels of our administrative process. *Comment:* One commenter expressed concern that the predictive model is the sole method for identifying QDD claims. The commenter suggested allowing experienced disability examiners to refer cases for QDD processing based on their initial review of the claim. *Response:* The QDD process is designed to take advantage of the technology now available to us to screen cases automatically and select for QDD processing those cases that involve a high potential that the claimant is disabled and that require evidence that can be easily and quickly obtained to support the claimant's allegations. We believe the predictive model that has been developed, and that we will revise as appropriate, will identify the appropriate cases for QDD processing. We therefore are not adopting the suggestion to let disability examiners or others involved in the claims-taking process select cases for QDD processing based on their own assessment of the case. *Comment:* Several commenters expressed concern that eliminating the 20-day time limit for processing QDD claims would lessen the likelihood of quick determinations. These commenters also stated that it will be difficult to monitor State agency performance in the QDD process without any specific time limitations in the rule. Other commenters recognized the need to provide for additional time to obtain medical evidence without removing a claim from the QDD process. Some of these commenters suggested retaining the 20-day time limit and allowing one 20-day extension to complete the QDD process. Others suggested adding incentives for meeting the time frames and sanctions where time frames are not met. On the other hand, several commenters supported the proposal to eliminate the 20-day time limit and related sanctions. They reasoned that the processing times for QDD cases in the Boston region showed that State agencies are completing most QDD cases well before the 20-day limit, demonstrating that the time limit is not necessary. Some of these commenters believed eliminating the time limit would give State agencies greater flexibility to handle their workloads. *Response:* We understand the concerns on both sides of this question. We have decided to eliminate the 20-day time limit, as proposed, for several reasons. First, we believe that the QDD processing results in the Boston region amply demonstrate that our partners in the State agencies share our commitment to processing these cases as quickly as possible. They have completed most QDD cases well before the 20-day limit, which indicates to us that the time limit was not the reason for their performance. Second, as we discussed earlier, the 20-day time limit has proven too short for some cases, leading to reassignment as non-QDD cases and additional work that could have been avoided by allowing the cases to remain with the QDD examiner. While some commenters suggested allowing the QDD examiner to obtain an extension of time in those cases, we believe the additional burdens of obtaining or justifying such an extension would needlessly divert the examiner's attention from adjudicating claims. Third, we anticipate that we may increase the percentage of cases selected for QDD as we gain more experience with it. As we increase that percentage, the additional cases will be those where the indicators for QDD are not as strong as the cases selected earlier, and where the adjudication of the claim will be more difficult. We reasonably expect that such an increase in the percentage of cases selected will lead to longer average processing times, and we believe we need the flexibility to continually adjust our process as we do this. Eliminating the 20-day rule gives us more flexibility. Therefore, we are eliminating the 20-day limit on processing QDD cases. Our goal of processing QDD claims within 20 days remains, however. As noted above, we will gather data in order to monitor the performance of State agencies with these claims. SSA currently shares this information with appropriate oversight agencies and will continue to do so. We also will consider adding incentives and sanctions as part of possible future changes to the QDD process if we determine that such changes are necessary. *Comment:* Three organizations representing State and Federal employees supported our proposed elimination of the requirement for separate QDD units, stating that the removal of that requirement would provide greater flexibility and efficiency. One commenter suggested that State agencies be required to have separate QDD units for 2 years to ensure that staff is fully trained and any local issues are addressed. *Response:* We agree with the commenters who believed that the flexibility and efficiency gains for the State agencies of eliminating the separate QDD unit requirement outweigh the advantages of retaining the requirement. Because all QDD claims must be assigned to experienced disability examiners, we do not agree with the suggestion that a separate unit be required for 2 years for training or other purposes. Therefore, we are eliminating the separate unit requirement. *Comment:* Our proposed rule requires that a medical or psychological consultant verify that the medical evidence in the file is sufficient to determine that, as of the alleged onset date, the individual's physical or mental impairment(s) meets the standards established by us for making a quick disability determination. Two commenters suggested that the experienced disability examiners who will handle QDD cases be given the authority to make the quick disability determination on their own if they decide that a medical or psychological consultant is unnecessary. Another commenter supported our requirement for medical or psychological consultant review in all QDD cases, stating that it maintains the medical integrity of the QDD decision. *Response:* We believe that medical or psychological consultant involvement in the disability determination is a critical component of the QDD process and helps ensure the quality of the determinations. Therefore, we are not adopting the suggestion to allow disability examiners to make determinations without a medical or psychological consultant's involvement. *Comment:* Commenters also suggested expanding the use of the Single Decision Maker

(SDM)case processing model currently operating in 20 States. They stated that SDM performance data show quicker processing times while maintaining the quality of the determinations. One commenter asked that we clarify how QDD's requirement for involvement of a medical or psychological consultant will work in States currently using the SDM model. *Response:* We are still evaluating the SDM model. It is premature to make any decisions about expanding it to other States. Under the SDM model generally, the decision maker is directed to make the disability determination “after any appropriate consultation with a medical or psychological consultant.” See 20 CFR 404.906(b)(2); 416.1406(b)(2). Because of the nature of the QDD process and the importance we are placing on the medical or psychological consultant's involvement in the QDD process, it is both “appropriate” and necessary in States operating under the SDM model for the decision maker to obtain the medical or psychological consultant involvement that is required by the QDD rules. We may revisit this question, however, during our evaluation of the SDM model. *Comment:* One commenter believes that we should monitor the predictive model software to ensure that it selects only cases appropriate for QDD processing. The commenter also suggested expanding QDD “compassionate reviews” throughout the DDSs. *Response:* As noted above, we agree with the need to monitor the predictive model software as part of our ongoing evaluation of the entire QDD process. We will make changes to the predictive model as data dictates. With regard to the comment on compassionate allowances, we recently published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking requesting public comments on the rules for compassionate allowances (72 FR 41649, July 31, 2007), and will consider any relevant comments we receive as we proceed with that initiative. *Comment:* In the NPRM, we specifically requested comments on the lead time, if any, that State agencies outside the Boston region would need to implement these rules. We received only one comment on this question. That commenter, an organization that represents disability determination directors, suggested that most States could implement the QDD process within 30 days, even considering the need for systems changes, outreach to medical providers, and staff selection and training. The commenter acknowledged that States with specific collective bargaining obligations requiring negotiations for the designation of QDD adjudicators might need additional time to implement the QDD process. *Response:* We appreciate the commenter's observations. Because the needs of individual State agencies may vary, particularly with regard to collective bargaining issues, we have provided in this final rule for additional time for State agencies outside the Boston region to become ready to accept QDD referrals. That lead time is provided in the DATES section of this final rule and discussed under the “Quick Disability Determinations” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. *Comment:* Four organizations representing individuals with disabilities expressed concerns about the QDD process in regard to low income claimants. They noted that to qualify for the QDD process, the claim must have a “high degree of probability that the individual is disabled” and the “individual's allegations will be easily and quickly verified.” They noted that many people with low incomes have difficulty obtaining ongoing medical care and, thus, may lack the readily available medical evidence to meet the QDD selection criteria. They urged us to consider ways to allow claims from such individuals to qualify for the QDD process. *Response:* The ready availability of medical evidence to support the claimant's alleged disability is crucial to the QDD process. We recognize that some claimants may be disabled but, for financial or other reasons, will not have readily available medical evidence supporting their claim. In those cases, we expend considerable time and resources to get the medical evidence necessary to decide the claim, even to the extent of arranging for medical examinations at our expense. While we share the commenters' concerns for these claimants, we do not believe cases lacking the necessary medical evidence can benefit from the QDD process. Therefore, we will process these claims using existing procedures. *Comment:* These same commenters urged us to expand the categories of claims that will satisfy the criteria of the predictive model and qualify for the QDD process. In particular, they suggested that more mental impairments be included in the QDD selection criteria. *Response:* Our predictive model does not necessarily identify specific conditions, but rather considers a variety of factors, including medical history, treatment protocols, and medical signs and findings. We will continue to evaluate the predictive model and make appropriate changes as we gain more data and experience. We will consider the commenters' concerns during that process. However, the specific criteria of the predictive model are not prescribed by this rule, and therefore we are making no changes to this rule in response to this comment. *Comment:* One commenter stated that we used inconsistent language in the preamble and in the proposed rule itself. The commenter correctly noted that in the proposed rule, in §§ 404.1619(a) and 416.1019(a), we referred to allegations being “easily and quickly verified.” However, the commenter stated that in the preamble, 72 FR at 37497, we referred to allegations that “can be quickly and easily obtained.” *Response:* We agree that our choice of words should be consistent, and in this instance we believe it was. The preamble language actually refers to claims “where evidence of the claimant's allegations can be quickly and easily obtained.” That is, we must be able to “obtain” the evidence and “verify” the allegations. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Amended We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and determined that this rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Thus, it was reviewed by OMB. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as it affects only States and individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule will impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements requiring OMB clearance. Federalism Impact and Unfunded Mandates Impact We have reviewed this rule under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and have determined that it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, or on imposing any costs on State, local, or tribal governments. This rule does not affect the roles of the State, local, or tribal governments. However, the rule takes administrative notice of existing statutes governing the roles and relationships of the State agencies and SSA with respect to disability determinations under the Act. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404 Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security. 20 CFR Part 405 Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security; Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 20 CFR Part 416 Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Dated: August 17, 2007. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending subparts J, P and Q of part 404, subparts A, B and I of part 405, and subparts I, J and N of part 416 as set forth below: PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950-) Subpart J—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a), (b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a), (b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 2. Amend § 404.903 by revising paragraphs

(x)and

(y)to read as follows: § 404.903 Administrative actions that are not initial determinations.

(x)Determining whether to select your claim for the quick disability determination process under § 404.1619;

(y)The removal of your claim from the quick disability determination process under § 404.1619; 3. Revise § 404.904 to read as follows: § 404.904 Notice of the initial determination. We will mail a written notice of our initial determination to you at your last known address. The written notice will explain in simple and clear language what we have determined and the reasons for and the effect of our determination. If our determination involves a determination of disability that is in whole or in part unfavorable to you, our written notice also will contain in understandable language a statement of the case setting forth the evidence on which our determination is based. The notice also will inform you of your right to reconsideration. We will not mail a notice if the beneficiary's entitlement to benefits has ended because of his or her death. Subpart P—[Amended] 4. The authority citation for subpart P continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a) and (i), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a) and (i), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). § 404.1503 [Amended] 5. Amend § 404.1503 by removing the last sentence in paragraph (a). Subpart Q—[Amended] 6. The authority citation for subpart Q continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 205(a), 221, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 421, and 902(a)(5)). 7. Amend § 404.1602 by adding in alphabetical order a definition for “Quick disability determination,” to read as follows: § 404.1602 Definitions. *Quick disability determination* means an initial determination on a claim that we have identified as one that reflects a high degree of probability that you will be found disabled and where we expect that your allegations will be easily and quickly verified. 8. Amend § 404.1603 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: § 404.1603 Basic responsibilities for us and the State.

(c)* * *

(2)Provide an organizational structure, adequate facilities, qualified personnel, medical consultant services, designated quick disability determination examiners (§§ 404.1619 and 404.1620(c)), and a quality assurance function (§§ 404.1620 through 404.1624); 9. Add a new undesignated center heading following § 404.1618 and add new § 404.1619 to read as follows: Quick Disability Determinations § 404.1619 Quick disability determination process.

(a)If we identify a claim as one involving a high degree of probability that the individual is disabled, and we expect that the individual's allegations will be easily and quickly verified, we will refer the claim to the State agency for consideration under the quick disability determination process pursuant to this section and § 404.1620(c).

(b)If we refer a claim to the State agency for a quick disability determination, a designated quick disability determination examiner must:

(1)Have a medical or psychological consultant verify that the medical evidence in the file is sufficient to determine that, as of the alleged onset date, the individual's physical or mental impairment(s) meets the standards we establish for making quick disability determinations;

(2)Make quick disability determinations based only on the medical and nonmedical evidence in the files; and

(3)Subject to the provisions in paragraph

(c)of this section, make the quick disability determination by applying the rules in subpart P of this part.

(c)If the quick disability determination examiner cannot make a determination that is fully favorable to the individual or if there is an unresolved disagreement between the disability examiner and the medical or psychological consultant, the State agency will adjudicate the claim using the regularly applicable procedures in this subpart. 10. Amend § 404.1620 by adding a new paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 404.1620 General administrative requirements.

(c)Each State agency will designate experienced disability examiners to handle claims we refer to it under § 404.1619(a). PART 405—ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS FOR ADJUDICATING INITIAL DISABILITY CLAIMS 11. The authority citation for part 405 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 201(j), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (s), 221, 223(a)-(b), 702(a)(5), 1601, 1602, 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (s), 421, 423(a)-(b), 902(a)(5), 1381, 1381a, 1383, and 1383b). Subpart A—[Amended] § 405.5 [Amended] 12. Amend § 405.5 by removing the definitions of the terms “Quick disability determination” and “Quick Disability Determination Unit.” Appendix to Subpart A of Part 405 [Amended] 13. Amend the appendix to subpart A by removing paragraph (d). Subpart B—[Amended] § 405.101 [Amended] 14. Amend § 405.101 by removing from the first sentence the phrase “, unless it makes a quick disability determination under §§ 405.105-.110,”. § 405.105 [Removed] 15. Remove and reserve § 405.105. § 405.110 [Removed] 16. Remove and reserve § 405.110. 17. Revise § 405.115 to read as follows: § 405.115 Notice of the initial determination. We will mail a written notice of our initial determination to you at your last known address. The written notice will explain in simple and clear language what we have determined and the reasons for and the effect of our determination. If our determination involves a determination of disability that is in whole or in part unfavorable to you, our written notice also will contain in understandable language a statement of the case setting forth the evidence on which our determination is based. The notice also will inform you of your right to review by a Federal reviewing official and explain your right to representation. We will not mail a notice if the beneficiary's entitlement to benefits has ended because of his or her death. Subpart I—[Removed] 18. Remove and reserve subpart I, consisting of §§ 405.801 through 405.850. PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart I—[Amended] 19. The authority citation for subpart I is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, 1382h note). § 416.903 [Amended] 20. Amend § 416.903 by removing the last sentence in paragraph (a). Subpart J—[Amended] 21. The authority citation for subpart J continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1614, 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1382c, 1383, and 1383b). 22. Amend § 416.1002 by adding a definition for “Quick disability determination,” to read as follows: § 416.1002 Definitions. *Quick disability determination* means an initial determination on a claim that we have identified as one that reflects a high degree of probability that you will be found disabled and where we expect that your allegations will be easily and quickly verified. 23. Amend § 416.1003 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: § 416.1003 Basic responsibilities for us and the State.

(c)* * *

(2)Provide an organizational structure, adequate facilities, qualified personnel, medical consultant services, designated quick disability determination examiners (§§ 416.1019 and 416.1020(c)), and a quality assurance function (§§ 416.1020 through 416.1024); 24. Add a new undesignated center heading following § 416.1018 and add new § 416.1019 to read as follows: Quick Disability Determinations § 416.1019 Quick disability determination process.

(b)If we refer a claim to the State agency for a quick disability determination, a designated quick disability determination examiner must:

(2)Make quick disability determinations based only on the medical and nonmedical evidence in the files; and

(3)Subject to the provisions in paragraph

(c)of this section, make the quick disability determination by applying the rules in subpart I of this part.

(c)to read as follows: § 416.1020 General administrative requirements.

(c)Each State agency will designate experienced disability examiners to handle claims we refer to it under § 416.1019(a). Subpart N—[Amended] 26. The authority citation for subpart N continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note). 27. Amend § 416.1403 by revising paragraphs (a)(22) and (a)(23) to read as follows: § 416.1403 Administrative actions that are not initial determinations.

(a)* * *

(22)Determining whether to select your claim for the quick disability determination process under § 416.1019;

(23)The removal of your claim from the quick disability determination process under § 416.1019; 28. Amend § 416.1404 by revising paragraph (a), removing paragraph

(b)and redesignating paragraph

(c)as paragraph (b). The revision reads as follows: § 416.1404 Notice of the initial determination.

(a)We will mail a written notice of our initial determination to you at your last known address. The written notice will explain in simple and clear language what we have determined and the reasons for and the effect of our determination. If our determination involves a determination of disability that is in whole or in part unfavorable to you, our written notice also will contain in understandable language a statement of the case setting forth the evidence on which our determination is based. The notice also will inform you of your right to reconsideration. We will not mail a notice if the beneficiary's entitlement to benefits has ended because of his or her death. [FR Doc. E7-17533 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-07-019] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has changed the drawbridge operation regulations that govern the operation of the Washington Street S136 Bridge at mile 0.0, across the Norwalk River, Norwalk, Connecticut. This final rule allows the bridge to remain in the closed position to facilitate the annual Norwalk River Fun Run held on the first Saturday in December, with a rain date for the next day in the event of inclement weather. This final rule is necessary for the safety of the race participants and to facilitate the running of the annual Fun Run Race. DATES: This rule is effective October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-07-019) and are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,

(212)668-7195. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On April 3, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations”; Norwalk River, Connecticut, in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 15852). We received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested and none was held. Background and Purpose The Washington Street S136 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 9 feet at mean high water, and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.217(a). The bridge owner, the Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a change to the regulations to help facilitate the running of the annual Norwalk River Fun Run Event which is run on the first Saturday in December. Under this final rule the Washington Street S136 Bridge would remain in the closed position from 10 a.m. through 12 p.m. on the first Saturday in December with a rain date for the next day, the first Sunday after the first Saturday in December in the event of inclement weather. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and as a result, no changes have been made to this final rule. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3), of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This conclusion is based on the fact the bridge closure is of short duration and during a time period the bridge seldom receives a request to open. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge closure is of short duration and during a time period the bridge seldom receives a request to open. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was given. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation considering that it relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Section 117.217 is amended by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 117.217 Norwalk River.

(a)The draw of the Washington Street S136 Bridge, mile 0.0, at Norwalk, shall operate as follows:

(1)The draw shall open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels that draw less than 14 feet of water.

(2)The draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., on the first Saturday in December, to facilitate the running of the annual Norwalk River Fun Run. Should inclement weather force the postponement of the race the above bridge closure shall be implemented the next day, the first Sunday after the first Saturday in December, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

(3)The bridge opening signal is three short blasts. Vessels drawing 14 feet of water or more shall add one prolonged blast after the three short blasts. Dated: August 20, 2007. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-17567 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0572; FRL-8146-7] Residues of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds di-n-Alkyl (C 8 - 10 ) dimethyl Ammonium chloride, Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This regulation amends 40 CFR 180.940(a), the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, di-n-Alkyl (C 8 - 10 ) dimethyl ammonium chloride, average molecular weight (in amu) 332 to 361 on food contact surfaces when applied/used in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils by increasing the allowable use solution concentrations of quaternary compounds. Lonza Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requesting an increase in the concentrations of quaternary compounds in end-use products eligible for the exemption. As amended, the regulation will exempt solutions from the requirement of a tolerance residues resulting from contact with surfaces treated with solutions where the end use concentration of the specific quaternary compounds does not exceed 240 parts per million

(ppm)of active quaternary ammonium compounds, and the end-use concentration of all quaternary chemicals in the solution does not exceed 400 ppm of active quaternary compound. DATES: This regulation is effective September 6, 2007. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 5, 2007, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0572. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(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. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Velma Noble, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)308-6233; e-mail address: *noble.velma@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 180.940 *Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions)* , paragraph (a). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you my access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0572 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 5, 2007. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0572, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs

(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. II. Background and Statutory Findings In the **Federal Register** of October 25, 2006 (71 FR 62458) (FRL-8099-6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F7045) by Lonza, Inc, 90 Boroline Rd, Allendale, NJ 07401. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by increasing concentration limits for aliphatic alkyl quaternary compounds in end-use solutions eligible for the tolerance exemption for Quaternary Ammonium compounds: Di-n-Alkyl (C 8 - 10 ) dimethyl ammonium chloride, average molecular weight (in amu) 332 to 361) on food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils from 150 ppm to 240 ppm and the total end use concentration of all quaternary chemicals in solution from 200 ppm to 400 ppm. The notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Lonza Inc., 90 Boroline Rd Allendale, NJ 07401, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket at *www.regulations.gov* , Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP -2006-0572. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....” EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. III. Toxicological Profile A. Toxic Effects Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by the Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries are discussed in this unit. The Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries are corrosive, highly irritating to the eye and skin, with moderate acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. These chemicals are classified as “not likely” to be a human carcinogen based on a negative carcinogenicity study in rats and mice feeding studies using doses above the limit. There is no evidence of these chemicals being associated with increased susceptibility to developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity based on two developmental toxicity studies and a two-generation reproductive study. Lastly, they are negative for mutagenicity and neurotoxicity. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by Di-n-Alkyl (C 8 - 10 ) dimethyl ammonium chloride, average molecular weight (in amu) 332 to 361)

(DDAC)as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0338; *Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED)for Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC)* . B. Toxic Endpoints For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for the risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor

(UF)is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. The Agency's level of concern

(LOC)for residential Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries' inhalation and oral exposures is 100 (i.e., a margin of exposure

(MOE)less than 100 exceeds the Agency's level of concern). The level of concern is based on 10x for interspecies extrapolation and 10x for intraspecies extrapolation. However, the uncertainty factor or “target” MOE for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries' dermal exposures is 10 for residential scenarios. The target MOE was chosen because the established endpoint is for dermal irritation, not a systemic toxic effect. In addition, dermal irritation is considered a reversible and short-term effect, thus supporting a 10x uncertainty factor (half a log (10.5) or approximately 3x for interspecies extrapolation and half log (10.5) or approximately 3x for intraspecies variation). It should be noted that the determination to reduce the 100x UF to 10X UF for irritation endpoints is made on a case-by-case basis. Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries toxicological endpoint summary is listed in the following table. **Table 1.—Summary of Toxicological Endpoints for DDAC** Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment (mg/kg/day) Target MOE/UF, Special FQPA SF for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary (Females 13-50) NOAEL (developmental) = 10 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation) Parenatal Developmental Toxicity - Rat MRID 41886701 LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of skeletal variations. Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/day (for Females age 13-50) Acute Dietary(general population) An acute dietary endpoint was not identified in the data base. This risk assessment is not required Chronic Dietary (general population) NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1 UF = 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation Chronic Toxicity Study - Dog MRID 41970401 LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of clinical signs in males and females and decreased total cholesterol levels in females Chronic RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/day Incidental Oral (Short-Term) NOAEL (developmental) = 10 mg/kg/day Target MOE = 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation) FQPA SF = 1 Prenatal Developmental Toxicity - Rat MRID 41886701 LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of skeletal variations. Incidental Oral (Intermediate-Term) NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day Target MOE = 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation) FQPA SF = 1 Chronic Toxicity Study - Dog MRID 41970401 LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of clinical signs in males and females and decreased total cholesterol levels in females. Dermal, Short-term (formulated product 0.13% a.i.) No endpoint identified. No dermal or systemic effects identified in the 21-day dermal toxicity study (MRID 45656601) up to and including the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day Dermal, Short-term a NOAEL (dermal) = 2 mg/kg/day(8 μg/cm 2 ) Target MOE = 10 (3x inter-species extrapolation, 3x intra-species variation) 90-day Dermal Toxicity - Rat MRID 41305901 LOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day based on increased clinical and gross findings (erythema, edema, exfoliation, excoriation, and ulceration) Dermal, Intermediate- and Long-term No appropriate endpoint identified Inhalation, Short-Term NOAEL b = 10 mg/kg/day Target MOE = 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation) FQPA SF = 1 Prenatal Developmental Toxicity - Rat MRID 41886701 LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of skeletal variations. Inhalation, Intermediate- and Long-Term NOAEL b = 10 mg/kg/day Target MOE = 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation) FQPA SF = 1 Chronic Toxicity Study - Dog MRID 41970401 LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of clinical signs males and females and decreased total cholesterol levels in females. UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = special FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic), RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = Level of concern, NA = Not Applicable. a Short-term dermal endpoint = (2 mg/kg rat x 0.2 kg rat x 1,000 μg/mg) ÷ 50 cm 2 area of rat dosed = 8 μg/cm 2 . b An additional UF of 10x is used for route extrapolation from an oral endpoint to determine if a confirmatory study is warranted. IV. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). A. Dietary Exposure Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries are used as a sanitizer on counter tops, utensils, appliances, tables, refrigerators, food packaging, and beverage bottling. The use of Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries as an antimicrobial product on food or feed contact surfaces, agricultural commodities, and application to food-grade eggs may result in pesticide residues in human food. Residues from treated surfaces, such as utensils, countertops, equipment, and appliances can migrate to food coming into contact with the treated and rinsed surfaces and can be ingested by humans. 1. *Food* . The Agency assessed acute and chronic dietary exposure from the use of Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries as a disinfectant and food contact sanitizer on direct and indirect food-contact surfaces. This assessment calculated the Daily Dietary Dose

(DDD)and the Estimated Daily Intake

(EDI)using an FDA model (2003). The FDA model takes into account application rates, residual solution, area of the treated surface which comes into contact with food, pesticide migration fraction, and body weight. The EDI calculations presented in this assessment are based on the assumption that food can contact 2,000 cm 2 of treated surface per day (which represents contact with a treated countertop surface area), 4,000 cm 2 of treated surface per day (which represents contact with treated silverware, china, and glass used by an individual who regularly eats three meals per day at an institutional or public facility ), or 6,000 cm 2 of treated surface per day (which represents treated countertops, silverware, china, and glass by an individual who regularly eats three meals per day at an institutional or public facility). It also assumes that 10% of the pesticide would migrate to food. When assessing the food bottling/packaging use, EPA assumed a 100% transfer rate because the food is potentially in contact with the treated surfaces for very long periods of time. The maximum application rate for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries for bottling/packaging of food is 0.0020 lbs active ingredient (a.i) per gallon of treatment solution. EDI values were calculated using an approach similar to that used for treated food-contact surfaces and food utensils. Exposure was assumed to occur through the ingestion of three food products that might be packaged with treated material: milk, egg products, and beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic). A calorie intake modification factor of 0.64 was applied to the EDI for a child to account for the differences between intake values among children and adults. 2. *Drinking water exposure* . The only Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries outdoor uses are an algaecide in decorative/swimming pools, antisapstain wood preservative treatment, once-through cooling tower treatment, and oil field uses. The pond and oil field uses are considered to be contained. The other uses are not expected to significantly contaminate drinking water sources. Therefore, the Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries contributions for drinking water exposure are considered to be negligible and are not quantified. It should be noted that the Agency estimated concentrations for exposure to aquatic animals resulting from the antisapstain and cooling tower uses. These levels were not considered appropriate for use in the drinking water assessment due to the very conservative nature of the models used, that the model estimates runoff/point source concentrations and not water body concentrations, and the fact that the models does not account for dilution. Specific information on the dietary and drinking water exposure assessments for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0338; *Dietary Risk Assessment on DDAC and Tier 1 Drinking Water Assessment for Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride (ADBAC); Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (DDAC)* . B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure The residential exposure assessment considers all potential non-occupational pesticide exposure, other than exposure due to residues in food or in drinking water. Exposures may occur during and after application as a hard surfaces disinfectant (e.g., walls, floors, tables, fixtures), to textiles (e.g., clothing, diapers) to swimming pools and to carpets. Each route of exposure (oral, dermal, inhalation) is assessed, where appropriate, and risk is expressed as a MOE, which is the ratio of estimated exposure to an appropriate NOAEL Residential exposure may occur during the application of Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries to indoor hard surfaces (e.g., mopping, wiping, trigger pump sprays), carpets, swimming pools, wood as a preservative, textiles (e.g., diapers treated during washing and clothes treated with fabric spray), and humidifiers. The residential handler scenarios were assessed to determine dermal and inhalation exposures. Surrogate dermal and inhalation unit exposure values were estimated using data from the Pesticide Handler Exposure Database

(PHED)and the Chemical Manufactures Association Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Study (USEPA, 1999), and the SWIMODEL 3.0 was utilized to conduct exposure assessments of pesticides found in swimming pools and spas (Versar, 2003). Note that for this assessment, EPA assumed that residential users complete all elements of an application (mix/load/apply) without the use of personal protective equipment. The duration for most residential exposures is believed to be best represented by the short-term duration (1 to 30 days). The short-term duration was chosen for this assessment because the residential handler and post-application scenarios are assumed to be performed on an episodic, not daily basis. Based on toxicological criteria and the potential for exposure, the Agency has conducted dermal and inhalation exposure assessments for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries residential use. As noted previously, MOEs greater than or equal to 100 for the inhalation route of exposure and 10 for dermal exposure are considered adequately protective for the residential exposure assessment. Specific information on the residential exposure assessment for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0338; *Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride

(DDAC)Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment* . V. Cumulative Effects Another factor EPA must consider in making a section 408 reasonable certainty of no harm determination is any “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” The Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries are a group of structurally similar quaternary ammonium compounds that are characterized by having a positively charged nitrogen covalently bonded to two alkyl group substituents (at least one C 8 or longer) and two methyl substituents. In finished form, these quats are salts with the positively charged nitrogen (cation) balanced by a negatively charged molecule (anion). The anion for the quats in this cluster is chloride or bromide. Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, or DDAC, was chosen as the representative chemical for this class in PR notice 88-2. On that basis, the toxicology database for DDAC is accepted as representative of the hazard for this class of quaternary ammonium compounds. However, the toxicologic responses observed from animal toxicity studies with DDAC are generalized responses to treatment and are difficult to attribute to any one mechanism. EPA's risk assessment for the Group I Cluster is based on an assessment of the cumulative exposure to all aliphatic alkyl quaternary compounds. The individual exposure scenarios in the DDAC assessments (as well as the aggregate assessment in the RED) were developed by assuming that a DDAC compound was used on 100 percent of the surfaces authorized on the label that could result in human exposure and summing the percent active ingredients on the labels for all of the aliphatic alkyl quaternary compounds when used in combination. Thus, because the risk assessment for DDAC accounts for exposures to all of the aliphatic alkyl quaternary compounds, there is no need for a separate cumulative risk assessment for those compounds. The Agency has not identified any other substances as sharing a common mode of toxicity with DDAC. VI. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. *In general* . Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (“10X”) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty/safety factors and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate. 2. *Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.* There is no evidence that Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries result in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation reproduction study. 3. *Conclusion* . EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: i. The toxicity database for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries is complete for assessing risk to infants and children under the FFDCA. ii. There is no indication that Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries are neurotoxic chemicals and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There is no evidence that Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries result in increased susceptibility in *in utero* rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. Although EPA may, in the future, refine exposure estimates for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries based on more sophisticated modeling techniques, the current exposure assessment is based on a combination of conservative assumptions that is likely to overstate exposure from food to Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries. VII. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (“aPAD”) and chronic population adjusted dose (“cPAD”). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded. 1. *Acute and chronic risk* . EPA compares the estimated dietary exposures to an aPAD and a cPAD, 0.1 mg/kg/day, which are the same value for the aliphatic alkyl quaternaries. Generally, a dietary exposure estimate that is less than 100% of the aPAD or cPAD does not exceed the Agency's levels of concern. The antimicrobial indirect food use acute/chronic risk estimates from exposure to treated utensils and countertops are below the Agency's level of concern. For adults, the acute and chronic dietary exposure risk estimates are 3.32% of the aPAD and cPAD for adult females of child bearing age (13 to 50), the highly exposed adult group. For children ages 3 to 5, the most highly exposed population subgroup, the acute and chronic dietary risk estimates are 13.3% of the aPAD and cPAD. Therefore, dietary exposure estimates are below the Agency's level of concern for all population subgroups. The antimicrobial indirect food use acute/chronic risk estimates from exposure to treated food packaging and beverage bottles are below the the Agency's level of concern. Neither the percent aPAD or percent cPAD values exceeded 100% and are not of concern. Specific information on the dietary exposure assessment for Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries can be found at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0338; *Dietary Risk Assessment on DDAC* . 2. *Non-occupational risk* . Aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for other non-occupational exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs greater than or equal to 100 for the inhalation route of exposure and 10 for dermal exposure; therefore, are not of concern. 3. *Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population* . Based on the carcinogenic data, the EPA concludes that there is reasonable certainty that Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries doe not pose an aggregate cancer risk to the U. S. population. 4. *Determination of safety* . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries residues. VIII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” Following recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). When appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disruption Screening Program

(EDSP)have been developed, the Aliphatic Alkyl Quaternaries

(DDAC)may be subjected to additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. B. Analytical Method(s) An analytical method for food is not needed. Food contact sanitizers are typically regulated by state health departments to ensure that the food industry is using these products in compliance with the regulations in 40 CFR 180.940. The end use solution that is applied to the food contact surface is analyzed not food items that may come into contact with the treated surface. An analytical method is available to analyze the use dilution that is applied to food contact surfaces. A titration method is used to determine the total amount of quaternary compound. If the use solution is a mixture of DDAC and alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC), then High Performance Liquid Chromatography using Ultra Violet Detection (HPLC-UV) is used to determine the amount of ADBAC. The amount of DDAC is determined by calculating the difference between the total amount of quaternary compounds and ADBAC. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). X. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Food contact sanitizers, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 29, 2007. Frank Sanders, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.940 is amended by revising the following entry to the table in paragraph (a): § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

(a)* * * Pesticide Chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits * * * * * * * Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, Di-n-Alkyl (C 8 - 10 ) dimethyl ammonium chloride, average molecular weight (in amu) 332 to 361 None When ready for use, the end-use concentration of these specific in quaternary ammonium compounds is not to exceed 240 ppm of active quaternary ammonium compound; the end-use concentration of all quaternary chemicals in the solution is not to exceed 400 ppm of active quaternary compound. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-17634 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Chapter 2 RIN 0750-AF56 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Emergency Acquisitions (DFARS Case 2006-D036) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide a single reference to DoD-unique acquisition flexibilities that may be used to facilitate and expedite acquisitions of supplies and services during emergency situations. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Benavides, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-1302; facsimile

(703)602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2006-D036. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background DoD published an interim rule at 72 FR 2631 on January 22, 2007, to provide a single reference to the acquisition flexibilities that may be used to facilitate and expedite DoD acquisitions of supplies and services during emergency situations. The rule supplements the Governmentwide acquisition flexibilities found in Part 18 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. DoD received no comments on the interim rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the interim rule as a final rule without change. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the rule is a compilation of existing authorities, and makes no change to DoD contracting policy. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Chapter 2 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Chapter 2—Amended Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR Chapter 2, which was published at 72 FR 2631 on January 22, 2007, is adopted as a final rule without change. [FR Doc. E7-17432 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 202 and 252 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Amendments AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update the list of Air Force and Navy contracting activities and to remove obsolete text. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-0311; facsimile

(703)602-7887. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends DFARS text as follows: ○ *Section 202.101.* Updates the list of Air Force and Navy contracting activities. ○ *Section 252.219-7009.* Removes an obsolete date within a reference to a partnership agreement between DoD and the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202 and 252 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 202 and 252 are amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 202 and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1. PART 202—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 2. Section 202.101 is amended in the definition of “Contracting activity” as follows: a. In the list with the heading “NAVY”, by removing “Deputy, Acquisition Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition)” and adding in its place “Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Acquisition & Logistics Management)”; and b. By revising the list with the heading “AIR FORCE”. The revised list reads as follows: 202.101 Definitions. AIR FORCE Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting) Air Force District of Washington Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center Air Force Special Operations Command United States Air Force Academy Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Reserve Command Air Combat Command Air Mobility Command Air Education and Training Command Pacific Air Forces United States Air Forces in Europe Air Force Space Command Program Executive Office for Aircraft Systems Program Executive Office for Command and Control & Combat Support Systems Program Executive Office for Combat and Mission Support Program Executive Office for F/A-22 Programs Program Executive Office for Joint Strike Fighter Program Executive Office for Weapons PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 252.219-7009 [Amended] 3. Section 252.219-7009 is amended as follows: a. By revising the clause date to read “(SEP 2007)”; and b. In paragraph (a), in the first sentence, by removing “dated February 1, 2002,”. [FR Doc. E7-17430 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 207 and 227 RIN 0750-AF70 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Data Rights (DFARS Case 2006-D055) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD has issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 802(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 802(a) contains requirements for DoD to assess long-term technical data needs when acquiring major weapon systems and subsystems. DATES: *Effective date:* September 6, 2007. *Comment date:* Comments on the interim rule should be submitted to the address shown below on or before November 5, 2007, to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D055, using any of the following methods: ○ *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. ○ *E-mail: dfars@osd.mil.* Include DFARS Case 2006-D055 in the subject line of the message. ○ *Fax:*

(703)602-7887. ○ *Mail:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. ○ *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams,

(703)602-0328. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Section 802(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) requires that DoD program managers for major weapon systems, and subsystems of major weapon systems, assess the long-term technical data needs of such systems and subsystems and establish corresponding acquisition strategies that provide for technical data rights needed to sustain such systems and subsystems over their life cycle. This interim rule amends DFARS Parts 207 and 227 to implement Section 802(a) of Public Law 109-364. Although the law does not address requirements for computer software, it is long-standing DoD policy to apply the same or similar requirements to both technical data and computer software, since many issues are common to both. Therefore, this interim DFARS rule applies to both technical data and computer software. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the rule pertains to acquisition planning that is performed by the Government. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2006-D055. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* D. Determination To Issue an Interim Rule A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 802(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364). Section 802(a) requires DoD to revise regulations to incorporate requirements for program managers to assess the long-term technical data needs of major weapon systems and subsystems, and to establish corresponding acquisition strategies that provide for technical data rights needed to sustain such systems and subsystems over their life cycle. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 207 and 227 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR parts 207 and 227 are amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 207 and 227 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. PART 207—ACQUISITION PLANNING 2. Section 207.106 is amended by adding paragraph (S-70) to read as follows: 207.106 Additional requirements for major systems. (S-70)(1) In accordance with Section 802(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) and DoD policy requirements, acquisition plans for major weapon systems and subsystems of major weapon systems shall—

(i)Assess the long-term technical data and computer software needs of those systems and subsystems; and

(ii)Establish acquisition strategies that provide for the technical data deliverables and associated license rights needed to sustain those systems and subsystems over their life cycle. The strategy may include—

(A)The development of maintenance capabilities within DoD; or

(B)Competition for contracts for sustainment of the systems or subsystems.

(2)Assessments and corresponding acquisition strategies developed under this section shall—

(i)Be developed before issuance of a solicitation for the weapon system or subsystem;

(ii)Address the merits of including a priced contract option for the future delivery of technical data and computer software, and associated license rights, that were not acquired upon initial contract award;

(iii)Address the potential for changes in the sustainment plan over the life cycle of the weapon system or subsystem; and

(iv)Apply to weapon systems and subsystems that are to be supported by performance-based logistics arrangements as well as to weapon systems and subsystems that are to be supported by other sustainment approaches. PART 227—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS 3. Section 227.7103-1 is amended by adding paragraph

(f)to read as follows: 227.7103-1 Policy.

(f)For acquisitions involving major weapon systems or subsystems of major weapon systems, the acquisition plan shall address acquisition strategies that provide for technical data and the associated license rights in accordance with 207.106(S-70). 4. Section 227.7203-1 is amended by adding paragraph

(e)to read as follows: 227.7203-1 Policy.

(e)For acquisitions involving major weapon systems or subsystems of major weapon systems, the acquisition plan shall address acquisition strategies that provide for computer software and computer software documentation, and the associated license rights, in accordance with 207.106(S-70). [FR Doc. E7-17422 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 212 and 234 RIN 0750-AF38 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Acquisition of Major Weapon Systems as Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2006-D012) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Section 803 places limitations on the acquisition of a major weapon system as a commercial item. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Felisha Hitt, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-0310; facsimile

(703)602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2006-D012. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background DoD published an interim rule at 71 FR 58537 on October 4, 2006, to implement Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163). Section 803 permits the treatment or acquisition of a major weapon system as a commercial item only if

(1)The Secretary of Defense determines that the major weapon system meets the definition of commercial item at 41 U.S.C. 403(12) and such treatment is necessary to meet national security objectives; and

(2)the congressional defense committees are notified at least 30 days before such treatment or acquisition occurs. DoD received no comments on the interim rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the interim rule as a final rule without change. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the rule relates to internal DoD considerations regarding the acquisition of major weapon systems. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212 and 234 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 212 and 234, which was published at 71 FR 58537 on October 4, 2006, is adopted as a final rule without change. [FR Doc. E7-17428 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 216 and 252 RIN 0750-AF44 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Labor Reimbursement on DoD Non-Commercial Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts (DFARS Case 2006-D030) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide policy for reimbursing labor costs on competitively awarded DoD non-commercial time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (CPF), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-0326; facsimile

(703)602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2006-D030. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background DoD published an interim rule at 71 FR 74469 on December 12, 2006, to clarify payment procedures for non-commercial time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts. Two sources submitted comments on the interim rule. A discussion of the comments is provided below. 1. *Comment:* One source stated that DoD should not require separate hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor on every competitively awarded non-commercial time-and-materials and labor-hour contract, since price competition will ensure the hourly rates are fair and reasonable and will eliminate potential abuses. The source also stated that the rationale cited in the interim rule for requiring separate hourly rates failed to address the benefits of adequate price competition and was not relevant to the requirement for separate rates. While not cited as rationale for requiring separate rates, the source stated that DoD may have adopted the rule to ensure subcontract labor meets the qualifications for the labor categories specified in the contract. If this is part of the rationale, DoD already has the ability to accomplish that objective through the subcontract consent provisions of FAR clause 52.244-2, which is mandatory for all time-and-materials contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Another source stated that the rule eliminates the flexibility to select the proper approach, considering the advantages and disadvantages of the pricing options for hourly rates. *DoD Response:* The FAR provisions authorize agencies to select, and make mandatory, one of the three options for pricing hourly rates. DoD believes it is in the best interest of the Department to select, and make mandatory, the FAR option that requires separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor. DoD believes the rationale cited in the interim rule adequately supports the requirement for separate rates. That rationale is not based on the benefits of adequate price competition, because those benefits are not affected by the requirement for separate hourly rates. The rationale is also not based on a need to ensure the subcontract labor meets the qualifications for the labor categories specified in the contract. 2. *Comment:* One source stated that the requirement for separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor will slow the acquisition process by requiring lengthy contract negotiations to establish separate hourly rates and contract modifications to add new subcontractors. In addition, the requirement will hinder contract performance, will tax DoD's acquisition workforce, and will likely prejudice qualified small and small disadvantaged businesses that only become known to the prime contractor after contract formation. Another source stated that the requirement for separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor will negatively impact contractor invoicing. Hours will have to be billed separately for each subcontractor and the prime for each fund cite. As a result, contractor indirect rates will increase to absorb the additional administrative costs. In addition, the administrative time and expense required to modify the contract to add new subcontractors will be substantial. *DoD Response:* The FAR authorizes separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor to recognize there may be circumstances when separate rates are required to adequately protect the Government. As stated in the preamble to the interim rule, DoD believes it is in the best interest of the Department to require separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor. When making that determination, DoD considered the potential administrative burden and costs that may result from the rule. In addition, the rule is not intended to prejudice small and small disadvantaged businesses. If additional subcontractors, including small and small disadvantaged businesses, are needed to perform on the contract after the initial contract award, the contract can be modified to add the hourly rates for the new subcontractors. 3. *Comment:* One source stated that the requirement for separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor makes it difficult to evaluate competing offers during source selection. Offerors will propose separate hourly rates for the prime contractor and each subcontractor by labor category. Offerors will then apply those rates to the projected mix of labor (prime and/or subcontract) to determine the overall estimated price for each labor category. The Government will then use the average labor rate for the labor categories to evaluate competing offers. However, after contract award, the prime contractor can change the mix of labor performed by the prime and subcontractors for each labor category. As a result, the actual rates that will be paid for a labor category may be significantly different than the estimated rates used to evaluate the offer during source selection. The source also stated that the rule does not provide guidance on how to ensure the benefits of competition are maintained and whether cost or pricing data is required when new subcontractors are proposed. With blended fixed hourly rates, competition establishes the reasonableness of the fixed hourly rates, and those rates are used for payment regardless of whether the prime or any subcontractors perform the work. With the required separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor, the benefits of competition may be lost, since the rates on the contract apply only to the labor identified during the proposal stage. *DoD Response:* DoD acknowledges that certain pricing challenges will arise from the use of separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor. DoD notes the pricing challenges do not originate with this rule. The FAR provisions also authorize the use of separate hourly rates for labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor. While the DFARS rule requires reimbursement using a different rate for the prime versus the subcontractor, a similar difference existed prior to the rule. Under the prior FAR provisions, offerors could project a mix of labor (prime and subcontractor). After contract award, the prime could change the actual mix of labor, potentially resulting in significantly different costs than the estimated costs that were used to evaluate the offer during source selection. While there are pricing challenges associated with time-and-materials contracts, those challenges were not created by this rule. 4. *Comment:* One source stated that the rule could lead to the Government directing subcontract orders to reduce contract costs when subcontractors' fixed hourly rates are lower than the prime contractor's fixed hourly rates. If the Government directs subcontract orders, the prime contractor will lose its ability and responsibility to manage its resources and the Government may forfeit certain contract remedies. *DoD Response:* In promulgating regulations, the assumption is that contracting personnel will follow the regulations. Nothing in the rule encourages contracting officers to wrongly direct subcontract orders. 5. *Comment:* One source stated that some of the subcontractors under the prime contract may compete with the prime for other prime contracts. The prime contractor may gain a competitive advantage over these other contractors on future competitions, since the prime will have insight into the composition of their rates. *DoD Response:* Nothing in the rule provides prime contractors insight into the composition of their subcontract rates. The prime contractor will bill for subcontract labor using its negotiated fixed hourly rates for the subcontractor. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 604. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein. The analysis is summarized as follows: This DFARS rule contains a substitute paragraph for use with the solicitation provision at FAR 52.216-29. The FAR provision contains three options for establishing fixed hourly rates on competitively awarded non-commercial time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts. The DFARS rule requires use of the FAR option that provides for the establishment of separate fixed hourly rates for each category of labor performed by the contractor and each subcontractor. The objective of the rule is to use the FAR option for establishing labor rates that is the most suitable for DoD contracts. The rule will apply to all entities interested in receiving DoD competitively awarded non-commercial time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts. The impact on small entities is unknown at this time. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 216 and 252 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. PART 216—[AMENDED] Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 216 and 252, which was published at 71 FR 74469 on December 12, 2006, is adopted as a final rule without change. [FR Doc. E7-17423 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 236 RIN 0750-AF41 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Congressional Notification of Architect—Engineer Services/Military Family Housing Contracts (DFARS Case 2006-D015) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 1031(a)(37) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Section 1031(a)(37) amended the requirements for submission of a notification to Congress before the award of a contract for architectural and engineering services or construction design in connection with military construction, military family housing, or restoration or replacement of damaged or destroyed facilities. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Felisha Hitt, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-0310; facsimile

(703)602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2006-D015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background DoD published an interim rule at 71 FR 58540 on October 4, 2006, to implement Section 1031(a)(37) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136). Section 1031(a)(37) amended the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 2807, for submission of a notification to Congress before the award of a contract for architectural and engineering services or construction design in connection with military construction, military family housing, or restoration or replacement of damaged or destroyed facilities. The amendments increased the contract dollar threshold for submission from $500,000 to $1,000,000; and reduced the time period for submission, from 21 to 14 days before obligation of funds, when the notification is provided in electronic medium. DoD received no comments on the interim rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the interim rule as a final rule without change. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the rule relates to reporting requirements that are internal to the Government. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 236 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. PART 236—[AMENDED] Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR Part 236, which was published at 71 FR 58540 on October 4, 2006, is adopted as a final rule without change. [FR Doc. E7-17427 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 237 RIN 0750-AF64 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Security-Guard Functions (DFARS Case 2006-D050) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD has issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 333 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 333 extends, through September 30, 2009, the period during which contractor performance of security-guard functions at military installations or facilities is authorized to fulfill additional requirements resulting from the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. DATES: *Effective date:* September 6, 2007. *Comment date:* Comments on the interim rule should be submitted to the address shown below on or before November 5, 2007, to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D050, using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: dfars@osd.mil.* Include DFARS Case 2006-D050 in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*

(703)602-7887. • *Mail:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Michael Benavides, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Benavides,

(703)602-1302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background 10 U.S.C. 2465 prohibits DoD from entering into contracts for the performance of firefighting or security-guard functions at military installations or facilities, unless an exception applies. Section 332 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314), Section 324 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-175), and Section 344 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163) have provided authority for DoD to waive the prohibition at 10 U.S.C. 2465, to fulfill additional requirements for security-guard functions at military installations or facilities resulting from the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Section 333 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) extends this authority through September 30, 2009, provided the total number of personnel employed to perform such functions does not exceed specified limits. This interim rule amends DFARS 237.102-70 to reflect the provisions of Section 333 of Public Law 109-364. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* Although the rule may provide opportunities for small business concerns to receive contracts for the performance of security-guard functions at military installations or facilities, the economic impact is not expected to be substantial. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2006-D050. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* D. Determination To Issue an Interim Rule A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 333 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364). Section 333 extends, through September 30, 2009, the period during which contractor performance of security-guard functions at military installations or facilities is authorized to fulfill additional requirements resulting from the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Section 333 also places limitations on the total number of personnel that may be employed under this authority during fiscal years 2007 through 2009. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 237 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR part 237 is amended as follows: PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 237 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. 2. Section 237.102-70 is amended by revising paragraph

(d)to read as follows: 237.102-70 Prohibition on contracting for firefighting or security-guard functions. (d)(1) Under Section 332 of Public Law 107-314, as amended by Section 333 of Public Law 109-364, this prohibition does not apply to any contract that is entered into for any increased performance of security-guard functions at a military installation or facility undertaken in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, if—

(i)Without the contract, members of the Armed Forces are or would be used to perform the increased security-guard functions;

(ii)The agency has determined that—

(A)Recruiting and training standards for the personnel who are to perform the security-guard functions are comparable to the recruiting and training standards for DoD personnel who perform the same security-guard functions;

(B)Contractor personnel performing such functions will be effectively supervised, reviewed, and evaluated; and

(C)Performance of such functions will not result in a reduction in the security of the installation or facility;

(iii)Contract performance will not extend beyond September 30, 2009; and

(iv)The total number of personnel employed to perform security-guard functions under all contracts entered into pursuant to this authority does not exceed—

(A)For fiscal year 2007, the total number of such personnel employed under such contracts on October 1, 2006;

(B)For fiscal year 2008, the number equal to 90 percent of the total number of such personnel employed under such contracts on October 1, 2006; and

(C)For fiscal year 2009, the number equal to 80 percent of the total number of such personnel employed under such contracts on October 1, 2006.

(2)Follow the procedures at PGI 237.102-70(d) to ensure that the personnel limitations specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this subsection are not exceeded. [FR Doc. E7-17436 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 237 RIN 0750-AF69 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Limitation on Contracts for the Acquisition of Certain Services (DFARS Case 2006-D054) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 832 prohibits DoD from entering into a service contract to acquire a military flight simulator unless certain waiver criteria apply. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Benavides, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-1302; facsimile

(703)602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2006-D054. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Section 832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) prohibits DoD from entering into a service contract to acquire a military flight simulator, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that a waiver is necessary for national security purposes and provides an economic analysis to the congressional defense committees at least 30 days before the waiver takes effect. This final rule adds text at DFARS 237.102-71 to reflect the provisions of Section 832 of Public Law 109-364. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule will not have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD. Therefore, publication for public comment under 41 U.S.C. 418b is not required. However, DoD will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 2006-D054. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 237 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR part 237 is amended as follows: PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 237 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. 2. Section 237.102-71 is added to read as follows: 237.102-71 Limitation on service contracts for military flight simulators.

(a)*Definitions.* As used in this subsection—

(1)*Military flight simulator* means any system to simulate the form, fit, and function of a military aircraft that has no commonly available commercial variant.

(2)*Service contract* means any contract entered into by DoD, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees as defined in 41 U.S.C. 357(b).

(b)Under Section 832 of Public Law 109-364, DoD is prohibited from entering into a service contract to acquire a military flight simulator. However, the Secretary of Defense may waive this prohibition with respect to a contract, if the Secretary—

(1)Determines that a waiver is necessary for national security purposes; and

(2)Provides an economic analysis to the congressional defense committees at least 30 days before the waiver takes effect. This economic analysis shall include, at a minimum—

(i)A clear explanation of the need for the contract; and

(ii)An examination of at least two alternatives for fulfilling the requirements that the contract is meant to fulfill, including the following with respect to each alternative:

(A)A rationale for including the alternative.

(B)A cost estimate of the alternative and an analysis of the quality of each cost estimate.

(C)A discussion of the benefits to be realized from the alternative.

(D)A best value determination of each alternative and a detailed explanation of the life-cycle cost calculations used in the determination.

(c)When reviewing requirements or participating in acquisition planning that would result in a military department or defense agency acquiring a military flight simulator, the contracting officer shall notify the program officials of the prohibition in paragraph

(b)of this subsection. If the program officials decide to request a waiver from the Secretary of Defense under paragraph

(b)of this subsection, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures at PGI 237.102-71. [FR Doc. E7-17425 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 252 RIN 0750-AF58 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Taxpayer Identification Numbers (DFARS Case 2006-D037) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to address requirements for validation of Taxpayer Identification Numbers as part of the Central Contractor Registration process. The DFARS changes are consistent with changes made to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Felisha Hitt, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-0310; facsimile

(703)602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2006-D037. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background DFARS 252.204-7004 contains a substitute paragraph for use with the clause at FAR 52.204-7, Central Contractor Registration, to address DoD-unique requirements relating to contractor registration in the Central Contractor Registration

(CCR)database. This final rule amends DFARS 252.204-7004 for consistency with changes made to FAR 52.204-7 in Item I of Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-10, published at 71 FR 36923 on June 28, 2006. The changes address requirements for the Government to validate a contractor's Taxpayer Identification Number, and for the contractor to consent to this validation, as part of the CCR registration process. DoD published a proposed rule at 71 FR 2645 on January 22, 2007. DoD received no comments on the proposed rule. Therefore, DoD has adopted the proposed rule as a final rule without change. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.,* because the rule relates to an administrative requirement for TIN validation, which is performed by the Government. Contractors need only provide consent for TIN validation as part of the CCR registration process. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows: PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. 2. Section 252.204-7004 is amended as follows: a. By revising the section heading, clause title, and clause date; and b. In paragraph (a), by revising the definition of “Registered in the CCR database” to read as follows: 252.204-7004 Alternate A, Central Contractor Registration. ALTERNATE A, CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION (SEP 2007)

(a)* * * “Registered in the CCR database” means that—

(1)The Contractor has entered all mandatory information, including the DUNS number or the DUNS+4 number, into the CCR database;

(2)The Contractor's CAGE code is in the CCR database; and

(3)The Government has validated all mandatory data fields, to include validation of the Taxpayer Identification Number

(TIN)with the Internal Revenue Service, and has marked the records “Active.” The Contractor will be required to provide consent for TIN validation to the Government as part of the CCR registration process. [FR Doc. E7-17433 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Parts 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, and 244 [Docket No. FRA-2004-17529; Notice No. 5] RIN 2130-AB66 Inflation Adjustment of Ordinary Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty for a Violation of a Federal Railroad Safety Law or Federal Railroad Administration Safety Regulation AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: To comply with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, FRA is adjusting the ordinary maximum penalty that it will apply when assessing a civil penalty for a violation of railroad safety statutes and regulations under its authority. In particular, FRA is increasing the ordinary maximum civil penalty from $11,000 to $16,000. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Grimmer, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6390), *sarah.grimmer@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Inflation Act) requires that an agency adjust by regulation each maximum civil monetary penalty (CMP), or range of minimum and maximum CMPs, within that agency's jurisdiction by October 23, 1996 and adjust those penalty amounts once every four years thereafter to reflect inflation. Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note, as amended by Section 31001(s)(1) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373, April 26, 1996. Congress recognized the important role that CMPs play in deterring violations of Federal law and regulations and realized that inflation has diminished the impact of these penalties. In the Inflation Act, Congress found a way to counter the effect that inflation has had on the CMPs by having the agencies charged with enforcement responsibility administratively adjust the CMPs. Calculation of the Adjustment Under the Inflation Act, the inflation adjustment is to be calculated by increasing the maximum CMP, or the range of minimum and maximum CMPs, by the percentage that the Consumer Price Index

(CPI)for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment (here, June 2006) exceeds the CPI for the month of June of the last calendar year in which the amount of such penalty was last set or adjusted (here, June 1998 for the ordinary maximum). The Inflation Act also specifies that the amount of the adjustment must be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100 for a penalty between $100 and $1,000, or to the nearest multiple of $5,000 for a penalty of more than $10,000 and less than or equal to $100,000. The first adjustment may not exceed an increase of ten percent. FRA utilized Bureau of Labor Statistics data to calculate adjusted CMP amounts. FRA is authorized as the delegate of the Secretary of Transportation to enforce the Federal railroad safety statutes and regulations, including the civil penalty provisions at 49 U.S.C. ch. 213. 49 CFR 1.49; 49 U.S.C. ch. 201-213. FRA currently has 28 regulations that contain provisions that reference its authority to impose civil penalties if a person violates any requirement in the pertinent portion of a statute or the Code of Federal Regulations. In this final rule, FRA is amending each of those separate regulatory provisions and the corresponding footnotes in each Schedule of Civil Penalties to raise the ordinary maximum CMP to $16,000. With the exception of the penalties relating to the hours of service laws (49 U.S.C. ch. 211), the ordinary maximum CMP for a violation of the rail safety laws and regulations was established by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988, which set a $10,000 limit for a CMP imposed for any ordinary violation, and a $20,000 limit for a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations that has created an imminent hazard of death or injury or caused death or injury (aggravated violations). In 1998, after applying the adjustment calculation in the Inflation Act, FRA determined that the ordinary maximum CMP for any single violation needed to be increased to $11,000 and that the maximum CMP for aggravated violations needed to be increased to $22,000. FRA amended each of its regulations by final rule to reflect the increased CMPs. 63 FR 11618. The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act (RSERA) in 1992 increased the range of the minimum and maximum civil penalties for a violation of the hours of service laws, making these minimum and maximum penalty amounts uniform with those of FRA's other regulatory provisions. Before enactment of RSERA, the penalty was “up to $1,000 per violation.” RSERA increased the minimum civil penalty for an hours of service violation to $500, the ordinary maximum civil penalty to $10,000, and the aggravated maximum to $20,000. By applying the same adjustment calculation using the 1992 CPI, the ordinary and aggravated maximum penalties for violations of the hours of service laws were raised to equal those of the other rail safety laws and regulations: $11,000 and $22,000. In 1998, FRA had applied the adjustment calculation in the Inflation Act to the minimum CMP and had determined that it would not need to be increased. In 2004, FRA by applying the adjustment calculation using the June 2003 CPI determined that the minimum CMP should be increased from $500 to $550. FRA also determined in 2004 under the same rationale that the aggravated maximum CMP should be increased from $22,000 to $27,000. 69 FR 30592. Calculations To Determine Civil Monetary Penalty Updates for 2007 1. Minimum CMP As required, this year, FRA reevaluated the minimum CMP and concluded that it should remain at $550, as the next calculations show. The June 2006 CPI of 607.8 divided by the CPI for June 2004 of 568.2 (since the last update was in 2004) equals an inflation factor of 1.06969; $550 times 1.06969 equals $588. The raw inflation adjustment amount of $38 is rounded to the nearest multiple of 100, or zero. The inflation-adjusted minimum penalty is $550 plus zero, or $550. See appendix. 2. Aggravated Maximum CMP FRA also reevaluated the CMP for an aggravated violation and determined that it should remain at $27,000, as the following calculations show. The June 2006 CPI of 607.8 divided by the CPI for June 2004 of 568.2 (since the last update was in 2004) equals an inflation factor of 1.06969; $27,000 times 1.06969 equals $28,882. The raw inflation adjustment amount of $1,882 is rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000, which is zero. The rounded raw inflation adjustment amount is zero. The inflation-adjusted aggravated maximum penalty remains $27,000. 3. Ordinary Maximum CMP Applying the adjustment calculation using the June 2006 CPI, FRA has determined that the ordinary maximum CMP should be increased from $11,000 to $16,000, as the next calculations show. The June 2006 CPI of 607.8 divided by the June 1998 CPI of 488.2 (since the last update was in 1998) equals an inflation factor of 1.24498; $11,000 times 1.24498 equals $13,695, or a raw inflation adjustment amount of $2,695, which is rounded up to the nearest multiple of $5,000, which is $5,000. Therefore, the ordinary maximum CMP should be increased by $5,000, or to $16,000. Because this is the second time that the ordinary maximum CMP has been adjusted under the Act, the ten-percent cap on the increase does not apply. This new FRA ordinary maximum penalty will apply to violations that occur on or after October 9, 2007. Public Participation FRA is proceeding to a final rule without providing a notice of proposed rulemaking or an opportunity for public comment. The adjustments required by the Act are ministerial acts over which FRA has no discretion, making public comment unnecessary. FRA is issuing these amendments as a final rule applicable to all future rail safety civil penalty cases under its authority. Regulatory Impact A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures. It is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034) because it is limited to a ministerial act on which the agency has no discretion. The economic impact of the final rule is minimal to the extent that preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted. B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination FRA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although this rule will apply to railroads and others that are considered small entities, there is no economic impact on any person who complies with the Federal railroad safety laws and the regulations and orders issued under those laws. C. Federalism This final rule will not have a substantial effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, preparation of a Federalism assessment is not warranted. D. Paperwork Reduction Act There are no new information collection requirements in this final rule. E. Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The final rule issued today will not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $128,100,000 or more in any one year by State, local, or Indian Tribal governments, or the private sector, and thus preparation of a statement is not required. F. Environmental Assessment There are no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule. G. Energy Impact According to definitions set forth in Executive Order 13211, there will be no significant energy action as a result of the issuance of this final rule. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, and 244 Railroad safety, Penalties. The Final Rule In consideration of the foregoing, parts 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, and 244, of subtitle B, chapter II of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: PART 209—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20111, 20112, 20114; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 209.409 [Amended] 2. Section 209.409 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Appendix A to Part 209—[Amended] 3. Appendix A to part 209 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” in the third paragraph below the heading “Penalty Schedules; Assessment of Maximum Penalties,” and replacing it with the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 213—[AMENDED] 4. The authority citation for part 213 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20114 and 20142; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49(m). § 213.15 [Amended] 5. Paragraph

(a)of § 213.15 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 214—[AMENDED] 6. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 214.5 [Amended] 7. Section 214.5 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 215—[AMENDED] 8. The authority citation for part 215 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 215.7 [Amended] 9. Section 215.7 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Appendix B to Part 215—[Amended] 10. Footnote 1 of Appendix B to Part 215—Schedule of Civil Penalties, is amended by removing the numerical amount “$10,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “16,000”. PART 216—[AMENDED] 11. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20104, 20107, 20111, 20133, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 216.7 [Amended] 12. Section 216.7 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 217—[AMENDED] 13. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 217.5 [Amended] 14. Section 217.5 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 218—[AMENDED] 15. The authority citation for part 218 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 218.9 [Amended] 16. Section 218.9 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Appendix A to Part 218 [Amended] 17. Footnote 1 of Appendix A to Part 218 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$22,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$27,000”. PART 219—[AMENDED] 18. The authority citation for part 219 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20140, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49(m). § 219.9 [Amended] 19. Paragraph

(a)of § 219.9 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 220—[AMENDED] 20. The authority citation for part 220 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 21301-21302, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 220.7 [Amended] 21. Section 220.7 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 221—[AMENDED] 22. The authority citation for part 221 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 221.7 [Amended] 23. Section 221.7 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 222—[AMENDED] 24. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20153, 21301, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 222.11 [Amended] 25. Section 222.11 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 223—[AMENDED] 26. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-03, 20133, 20701-20702, 21301-02, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 223.7 [Amended] 27. Section 223.7 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 224—[AMENDED] 28. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20148 and 21301; 28 U.S.C. 2461; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 224.11 [Amended] 29. Section 224.11 is amended by removing the amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 225—[AMENDED] 30. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 103, 322(a), 20103, 20107, 20901-02, 21301, 21302, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 225.29 [Amended] 31. Section 225.29 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 228—[AMENDED] 32. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21101-21108; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note and 49 CFR 1.49. § 228.21 [Amended] 33. Section 228.21 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Appendix A to Part 228—Requirements of the Hours of Service Act: Statement of Agency Policy and Interpretation 34. In appendix A to part 228, the ninth paragraph below the heading “General Provisions,” which is entitled “Penalty” is amended by adding the following at the end of the paragraph: Penalty. * * * Effective October 9, 2007, the ordinary maximum penalty of $11,000 was raised to $16,000 as required under the law; however, the minimum penalty and the maximum penalty for a grossly negligent violation did not need to be adjusted. PART 229—[AMENDED] 35. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20137-20138, 20143, 20701-20703, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49 (c), (m). § 229.7 [Amended] 36. Paragraph

(b)of § 229.7 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Appendix B to Part 229—[Amended] 37. Footnote 1 to Appendix B of Part 229 is amended by removing the numerical amount of “$10,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 230—[AMENDED] 38. The authority citation for part 230 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20702; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 230.4 [Amended] 39. Paragraph

(a)of § 230.4 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 231—[AMENDED] 40. The authority citation for part 231 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20131, 20301-20303, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 231.0 [Amended] 41. Paragraph

(f)of § 231.0 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 232—[AMENDED] 42. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20301-20303, 20306, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 232.11 [Amended] 43. Paragraph

(a)of § 232.11 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Appendix A To Part 232—[AMENDED] 44. Footnote 1 to Appendix A of Part 232 is amended by removing the numerical amount of “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 233—[AMENDED] 45. The authority citation for part 233 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 233.11 [Amended] 46. Section 233.11 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 234—[AMENDED] 47. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 234.6 [Amended] 48. Paragraph

(a)of § 234.6 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 235—[AMENDED] 49. The authority citation for part 235 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 235.9 [Amended] 50. Section 235.9 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 236—[AMENDED] 51. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note and 49 CFR 1.49. § 236.0 [Amended] 52. Paragraph

(f)of § 236.0 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 238—[AMENDED] 53. The authority citation for part 238 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20133, 20141, 20302-20303, 20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 CFR 1.49. § 238.11 [Amended] 54. Paragraph

(a)of § 238.11 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Appendix A to Part 238—[AMENDED] 55. Footnote 1 to Appendix A of part 238 is amended by removing the numerical amount of “$10,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 239—[AMENDED] 56. The authority citation for part 239 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20105-20114, 20133, 21301, 21304, and 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49(c), (g), (m). § 239.11 [Amended] 57. Section 239.11 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 240—[AMENDED] 58. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20135, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 240.11 [Amended] 59. Paragraph

(a)of § 240.11 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 241—[Amended] 60. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21301, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 CFR 1.49. § 241.15 [Amended] 61. Paragraph

(a)of § 241.15 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. PART 244—[Amended] 62. The authority citation for part 244 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21301; 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49. § 244.5 [Amended] 63. Paragraph

(a)of § 244.5 is amended by removing the numerical amount “$11,000” and adding in its place the numerical amount “$16,000”. Joseph H. Boardman, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration. Appendix: Step by Step Calculations To Determine Civil Monetary Penalty Updates: 2007 Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Step by Step Calculations To Determine Civil Monetary Penalty Updates: 2007 These calculations follow DOT and Government Accounting Office guidance to determine if the CMPs should be updated according to the Inflation Act. (Sources for guidance:

(1)GAO attachment to Memorandum with subject, “Annual Review of Department of Transportation's

(DOT)Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment” dated July 10, 2003;

(2)policy paper entitled “Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990.”). Overall, there is no change in the minimum ($550) and aggravated maximum penalties ($27,000) for 2007, but the ordinary maximum rises from $11,000 to $16,000 under the Inflation Act. Minimum The current minimum CMP is $550, last updated on May 28, 2004. See 69 FR 30592. *Step 1:* Find the Consumer Price Index (CPI). (BLS, 1967 Base, U.S. City Avg.) The CPI for June of the preceding year, i.e., CPI for June 2006 = 607.8 The CPI for June of the year the CMP was last set or adjusted under the Inflation Act, i.e., CPI for June 2004 = 568.2 Step 2: Calculate the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), or the Inflation Factor. ER06SE07.006 Step 3: Find the Raw Inflation Adjustment or Inflation Adjustment Before Rounding. Raw Inflation Adjustment = CMP × COLA = $550 × 1.06969 = $588.33 ≉ $588 Step 4: Round the Raw Inflation Adjustment Amount. Recall that the increase in the CMP is rounded, according to the rounding rules. Increase = Raw Inflation Adjustment—Original CMP = $588 − $550 = $38 Use the following rounding rule: “If the current unadjusted penalty is greater than $100 and less than or equal to $1,000, round the increase to the nearest multiple of $100.” (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, p. 4) The nearest multiple of $100 is $0. Rounded, the $38 increase = $0 Step 5: Find the Inflation Adjusted Penalty After Rounding. CMP after rounding = Original CMP + Rounded Increase = $550 + $0 = $550 Step 6: Apply a 10% Ceiling if Necessary. As the minimum CMP has been adjusted previously according to the Inflation Act, the 10% cap for first time adjustments does not apply. Step 7: Determine New Penalty The new minimum CMP = $550 For 2007, the minimum CMP stays the same. Ordinary Maximum The current ordinary maximum CMP is $11,000, last updated on March 10, 1998. See 63 FR 11619. Step 1: Find the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI for June of the preceding year, i.e., CPI for June 2006 = 607.8 The CPI for June of the year the CMP was last set or adjusted under the Inflation Act, i.e., CPI for June 1998 = 488.2 Step 2: Calculate the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), or the Inflation Factor. ER06SE07.007 Step 3: Find the Raw Inflation Adjustment or Inflation Adjustment Before Rounding. Raw Inflation Adjustment = CMP × COLA Raw Inflation Adjustment = $11,000 × 1.24498 = $13,694.78 ≉ $13,695 Step 4: Round the Raw Inflation Adjustment Amount. Recall that the increase in the CMP is rounded, according to the rounding rules. Increase = Raw Inflation Adjustment − Original CMP Increase = $13,695 − $11,000 = $2,695 Use the following rounding rule: “If the current unadjusted penalty is greater than $10,000 and less than or equal to $100,000, round the increase to the nearest multiple of $5,000.” (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, p. 4) The nearest multiple of $5,000 is $5,000. Rounded, the $2,695 increase = $5,000 Step 5: Find the Inflation Adjusted Penalty After Rounding. CMP after rounding = Original CMP + Rounded Increase CMP after rounding = $11,000 + $5,000 = $16,000 Step 6: Apply a 10% Ceiling if Necessary. As the ordinary maximum CMP has been adjusted previously according to the Inflation Act, the 10% cap for first time adjustments does not apply. Step 7: Determine New Penalty The new ordinary maximum CMP = $16,000 For 2007, the ordinary maximum CMP rises from $11,000 to $16,000. Aggravated Maximum The current aggravated maximum CMP is $27,000, last updated on May 28, 2004. See 69 FR 30592. Step 1: Find the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI for June of the preceding year, i.e., CPI for June 2006 = 607.8 The CPI for June of the year the CMP was last set or adjusted under the Inflation Act, i.e., CPI for June 2004 = 568.2 Step 2: Calculate the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), or the Inflation Factor. ER06SE07.008 Step 3: Find the Raw Inflation Adjustment or Inflation Adjustment Before Rounding. Raw Inflation Adjustment = CMP × COLA Raw Inflation Adjustment = $27,000 × 1.06969 = $28,881.63 ≉ $28,882 Step 4: Round the Raw Inflation Adjustment Amount. Recall that the increase in the CMP is rounded, according to the rounding rules. Increase = Raw Inflation Adjustment − Original CMP Increase = $28,882 − $27,000 = $1,882 Use the following rounding rule: “If the current unadjusted penalty is greater than $10,000 and less than or equal to $100,000, round the increase to the nearest multiple of $5,000.” (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, p. 4) The nearest multiple of $5,000 is $0. Rounded, the $1,882 increase = $0 Step 5: Find the Inflation Adjusted Penalty After Rounding. CMP after rounding = Original CMP + Rounded Increase CMP after rounding = $27,000 + $0 = $27,000 Step 6: Apply a 10% Ceiling if Necessary. As the aggravated maximum CMP has been adjusted previously according to the Inflation Act, the 10% cap for first time adjustments does not apply. Step 7: Determine New Penalty The new aggravated maximum CMP = $27,000 For 2007, the aggravated maximum CMP stays the same. [FR Doc. E7-17170 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P 72 172 Thursday, September 6, 2007 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 591 RIN 3206-AL28 Nonforeign Area Cost-of-Living Allowance Rates; Puerto Rico and Hawaii County, HI AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)is proposing to change the cost-of-living allowance

(COLA)rates received by certain white-collar Federal and U.S. Postal Service employees in Puerto Rico and Hawaii County, HI. The proposed rate changes are the result of interim adjustments OPM calculated based on relative Consumer Price Index differences between the cost-of-living allowance areas and the Washington, DC, area. OPM is also proposing an additional one-time adjustment to the Puerto Rico COLA rate based on the impact of the new sales tax in Puerto Rico. DATES: We will consider comments received on or before November 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Charles D. Grimes III, Deputy Associate Director for Performance Management and Pay Systems, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management, Room 7300B, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200; fax:

(202)606-4264; or e-mail: *COLA@opm.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Stanley Austin,

(202)606-2838; fax:

(202)606-4264; or e-mail: *COLA@opm.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 5941 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes Federal agencies to pay cost-of-living allowances (COLAs) to white-collar Federal and U.S. Postal Service employees stationed in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). Executive Order 10000, as amended, delegates to the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)the authority to administer nonforeign area COLAs and prescribes certain operational features of the program. OPM conducts living-cost surveys in each allowance area and in the Washington, DC, area to determine whether, and to what degree, COLA area living costs are higher than those in the DC area. OPM sets the COLA rate for each area based on the results of these surveys. As required by section 591.223 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, OPM conducts COLA surveys once every 3 years on a rotating basis. For areas not surveyed during a particular year, OPM adjusts COLA rates by the relative change in the Consumer Price Index

(CPI)for the COLA area compared with the Washington, DC, area. (See 5 CFR 591.224-591.226.) OPM adopted these regulations pursuant to the stipulation for settlement in *Caraballo et al.* v. *United States* , No. 1997-0027 (D.V.I.), August 17, 2000. *Caraballo* was a class-action lawsuit which resulted in many changes in the COLA methodology and regulations. OPM computed interim adjustments based on the relative change in the CPI for the Pacific and Caribbean COLA areas. A separate notice on the calculation of these interim adjustments accompanies this proposed rule. The interim adjustments indicate that, except for Hawaii County and Puerto Rico, the COLA rates for the Pacific and Caribbean COLA areas are currently set at the appropriate levels. For Hawaii County, the adjustments indicate that the COLA rate should be increased from 17 percent to 18 percent. For Puerto Rico, the adjustments indicate the COLA rate should be increased from 10.5 percent to 11 percent. This increase in Puerto Rico supersedes the 1-percent reduction proposed by OPM on October 27, 2006, at 71 FR 63176, based on the 2005 survey results. Puerto Rico Sales Tax Adjustment On July 4, 2006, the Puerto Rico government enacted the Tax Justice Act of 2006 (Act No. 117, HB 2193), which established a new Commonwealth sales and use tax of 5.5 percent and authorized an additional municipal sales and use tax of up to 1.5 percent. To measure the impact of the new sales tax on living costs in Puerto Rico, we applied the sales tax to covered items priced in OPM's 2005 Puerto Rico COLA survey. (The law exempted many items from coverage; e.g., most grocery items, cars, rent, prescription drugs, many professional services, health insurance, and school tuition.) We then recalculated the Puerto Rico price index incorporating the sales tax. The index increased by 1.9 points to 112.94, which translates to a COLA rate of 13 percent. Therefore, to account for this additional cost to Federal employees in Puerto Rico, we are proposing to increase the Puerto Rico COLA rate to 13 percent. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation will affect only Federal agencies and employees. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 591 Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses, Wages. Office Of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend subpart B of 5 CFR part 591 as follows: PART 591—ALLOWANCES AND DIFFERENTIALS Subpart B—Cost-of-Living Allowance and Post Differential—Nonforeign Areas 1. The authority citation for subpart B of 5 CFR part 591 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5941; E.O. 10000, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 792; and E.O. 12510, 3 CFR, 1985 Comp., p. 338. 2. Revise appendix A of subpart B to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 591—Places and Rates at Which Allowances Are Paid This appendix lists the places approved for a cost-of-living allowance and shows the authorized allowance rate for each area. The allowance rate shown is paid as a percentage of an employee's rate of basic pay. The rates are subject to change based on the results of future surveys. Geographic coverage Allowance rate (percent) State of Alaska: City of Anchorage and 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius by road 24 City of Fairbanks and 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius by road 24 City of Juneau and 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius by road 24 Rest of the State 25 State of Hawaii: City and County of Honolulu 25 Hawaii County, Hawaii 18 County of Kauai 25 County of Maui and County of Kalawao 25 Territory of Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 25 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 13 U.S. Virgin Islands 25 [FR Doc. E7-17638 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29116; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-064-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 all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection to determine the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts. For airplanes having composite gray water drain masts, this proposed AD would also require installation of a copper bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. This proposed AD results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane. We are proposing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system 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 22, 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. • 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-2007-29116; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-064-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. The subject area on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 airplanes is almost identical to that on the affected Model 767-300F airplane. Therefore, Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes might be subject to the unsafe condition revealed on the Model 767-300F airplane. We are currently considering additional rulemaking to address the identified unsafe condition on Model 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1056, dated February 28, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing a 135-ampere copper bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain mast. 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 1,540 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 $80 420 $33,600. Installation of bonding jumper Between 2 and 4 (depending on airplane configuration) $80 Between $7 and $15, depending on kit Between $167 and $335 Up to 420 Between $70,140 and $140,700. 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-2007-29116; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-064-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 22, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system 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 Masts

(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 masts are 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 paragraph for that drain mast only.

(2)For any composite gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. Installation of Bonding Jumper

(g)For any composite gray water drain mast identified during the inspection or records check required by paragraph

(f)of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install a 135-ampere copper bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the gray water composite drain mast, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-30-1056, dated February 28, 2007. 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.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 28, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-17586 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28601; Airspace Docket 07-AEA-02] Proposed Establishment of Class D and E Airspace, Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Easton, MD AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D, E2 and E4 airspace and revise E5 airspace at Easton, MD. A federal contract tower with a weather reporting system is being constructed at Easton Airport/Newnam Field. Therefore, the airport will meet criteria for Class D, E2, and E4 surface area airspace. Class D surface area airspace and Class E4 airspace designed as an extension to Class D airspace is required when the control tower is open to contain Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and other Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at the airport. Class E2 surface area airspace is required when the control tower is closed to contain SIAPs and other IFR operations at the airport. This action would establish Class D and E2 airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the airport and Class E4 airspace extension that is 5.4 miles wide and extends 7.4 miles northeast of the Easton Non Directional Beacon (NDB). Additionally, a technical revision to Class E5 airspace is required as a result of a name change from the Easton Municipal Airport to Easton Airport/Newnam Field, which was effective May 25, 1993. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-28601; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-02, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (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 Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room C210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark D. Ward, Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration. P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone

(404)305-5581. 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 and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-28601; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-02.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. 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** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Persons interested in being placed on mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 to establish Class D, E2, and E4 airspace and revise Class E5 airspace at Easton, MD. Class D and E2 Airspace Designations for Airspace Areas extending upward from the surface of the Earth, Class E4 Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area and Class E5 Airspace Areas extending upward from 700 feet ore more above the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005 respectively of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 The Class D, E2, E4 and E5 airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore,

(1)is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and

(3)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA MD D Easton, MD [NEW] Easton Airport/Newnam Field, MD (Lat. 38°48′15″ N., long. 76°04′08″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the Easton Airport/Newnam Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. AEA MD E2 Easton, MD [NEW] Easton Airport/Newman Field, MD (Lat. 38°48′15″ N., long. 76°04′08″ W.) Easton NDB (Lat. 38°48′17″ N., long. 76°04′10″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the Easton Airport/Newman Field and that airspace within 2.7 miles each side of the 038° bearing from the Easton NDB extending from the 4-mile radius of the Easton Airport/Newman Field to 7.4 miles northeast of the NDB. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Paragraph 604 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA MD E4 Easton, MD [NEW] Easton Airport/Newman Field, MD (Lat. 38°48′15″ N., long. 76°04′08″ W.) Easton NDB (Lat. 38°48′17″ N., long. 76°04′10″ W.) That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles each side of the 038° bearing from the Easton NDB extending from the 4-mile radius of the Easton Airport/Newman Field to 7.4 miles northeast of the NDB. Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA MD E5 Easton, MD [REVISED] Easton Airport/Newman Field, MD (Lat. 38°48′15″ N., long. 76°04′08″ W.) Easton NDB (Lat. 38°48′17″ N., long. 76°04′10″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the Easton Airport/Newman Field and within 2.7 miles each side of the 038° bearing from the Easton NDB extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.4 miles northeast of the NDB. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 8, 2007. Kathy Kutch, Acting Manager, System Support Group Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. 07-4330 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 42

Traces to 42 documents