Unknown. Final rule
23,517 words·~107 min read·
/register/2007/09/26/07-4748A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-09-26.xml --- 72 186 Wednesday, September 26, 2007 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Federal Crop Insurance Corporation See Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54639 E7-18917 Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Historical Advisory Committee; correction, 54717 C7-4694 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings:
Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panels, 54667 E7-18945 E7-18947 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CITA Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements NOTICES Textile and apparel categories: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement; commercial availability— Two-way stretch woven fabrics, 54643-54644 E7-18986 Copyright Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress PROPOSED RULES Noncommercial educational broadcasting; copyrighted works use; statutory license rates and terms, 54622-54623 E7-18939 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54644-54645 E7-18903 Defense Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54645-54646 E7-19002 Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Defense Acquisition Regulations System Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54646 E7-18977 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See Southwestern Power Administration EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
Arkansas, 54556-54562 E7-18966 Missouri, 54562-54564 E7-18792 Pesticides; tolerances in food, animal feeds, and raw agricultural commodities: Alachlor, 54579-54584 E7-18967 Methamidophos, etc., 54574-54579 E7-18869 Pyraclostrobin, 54564-54569 E7-18858 Sulfosulfuron, 54569-54574 E7-18864 Tepraloxydim, 54584-54588 E7-18850 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Arkansas, 54623-54624 E7-18964 Missouri, 54624 E7-18791 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54654-54656 E7-18961 Pesticide programs:
Risk assessments— N-methyl carbamate, 54656-54658 E7-18860 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: Dichlorvos, 54658-54662 E7-18861 Pesticides; registration, cancellation, etc.: Allethrins, 54662-54663 E7-18789 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents Export Export-Import Bank NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54663 07-4758 Farm Farm Credit Administration RULES Farm credit system: Conservators, receivers, and voluntary liquidation— Joint and several liability; priority of claims, 54527-54529 E7-18968 Subordinated debt; priority of claims, 54525-54527 E7-18965 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
Airbus, 54536-54538 E7-18870 Boeing, 54533-54535 E7-18747 Viking Air Ltd., 54535-54536 E7-18863 Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— Boeing Model 787-8 airplane, 54529-54533 E7-18931 E7-18942 NOTICES Meetings: Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, 54709-54710 E7-18932 RTCA, Inc., 54710-54711 07-4725 07-4726 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Television broadcasting: Advanced television
(ATV)systems— Digital television transition; DTV table of allotments, 54720-54773 E7-18248 PROPOSED RULES Television broadcasting: Advanced television
(ATV)systems— Digital television transition; DTV table of allotments; correction, 54774 E7-18245 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54663-54665 E7-19005 E7-19007 E7-19009 Federal Crop Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES Crop insurance regulations: Fresh market sweet corn crop provisions, 54519-54525 E7-18781 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Flood insurance; communities eligible for sale: Various States, 54588-54600 E7-18952 E7-18953 PROPOSED RULES Flood elevation determinations: North Carolina and Texas, 54624-54631 E7-18948 Various States, 54631-54635 E7-18951 NOTICES Disaster and emergency areas: Iowa, 54669-54670 E7-19011 Oklahoma, 54670 E7-18959 E7-19004 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Complaints filed: American Electric Power Service Corp. et al., 54649-54650 E7-18910 Montgomery Great Falls Energy Partners LP, 54650 E7-18909 Hydroelectric applications, 54650-54651 E7-18906 Meetings: Southern Natural Gas Co.; technical conference, 54651 E7-18984 Natural gas pipeline rate and refund report filings, 54651-54652 E7-18941 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. et al.; correction, 54646 E7-18907 Bonneville Power Administration, 54646-54648 E7-18929 Chugach Electric Association, Inc., et al., 54648 E7-18908 Empire Pipeline Inc., 54648-54649 E7-18985 Exelon Corp., 54649 E7-18905 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 54665 E7-18976 Ocean transportation intermediary licenses: Blue Carrier Line, Inc., et al., 54665 E7-18975 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54686 07-4761 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54711-54712 E7-19016 E7-19017 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54712-54713 07-4765 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54713 E7-18916 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 54666 E7-18937 Permissible nonbanking activities, 54666 E7-18936 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 54666 07-4751 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Hunting and fishing: Refuge-specific regulations— Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge, ID; CFR correction, 54602-54603 07-55512 NOTICES Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.: Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, LA, 54673-54674 E7-18982 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products: Tulathromycin; injectable dosage, 54539-54540 E7-18983 Food Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Meetings: Codex Alimentarius Commission— Food Hygiene Codex Committee, 54639-54640 07-4757 Government Government Ethics Office NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; membership, 54666-54667 E7-18973 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health Homeland Homeland Security Department See Federal Emergency Management Agency See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services See U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54669 E7-19034 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Model Tribal Probate Code; availability and submission guidance, 54674-54679 E7-19103 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service NOTICES Native Hawaiian Organization Notification List; establishment criteria, 54672-54673 E7-19003 IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Income taxes: Employee benefits; cafeteria plans Correction, 54717 Z7-14827 Medical and accident insurance benefits under qualified plans; tax treatment of payments Correction, 54614-54615 E7-18989 Reportable transactions disclosure requirements; American Jobs Creation Act modifications, 54615-54618 E7-18934 Tax-exempt bonds; arbitrage guidance, 54606-54614 07-4734 Procedure and administration: Tax-exempt organizations; public inspection of related materials Correction, 54618-54619 E7-18990 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from— Italy, 54640-54642 E7-18991 Labor Labor Department See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Survey plat filings: Nebraska, 54679 E7-18946 Library Library of Congress See Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress Millennium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Millennium Challenge Account assistance— Candidate countries and countries that would be candidates but for legal prohibitions, 54680-54686 07-4752 Mine Mine Safety and Health Federal Review Commission See Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, 54686-54687 E7-18882 E7-18921 E7-18922 E7-18923 E7-18924 E7-18926 E7-18928 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54687-54691 E7-18970 E7-18978 E7-18979 E7-18981 E7-18993 E7-19001 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Motor vehicle theft prevention standards: Parts marking requirements; 2008 model year light duty trucks; list, 54600-54602 E7-18971 PROPOSED RULES Civil monetary penalties; inflation adjustment, 54635-54638 E7-19019 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 54667-54668 07-4739 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 54668-54669 07-4738 National Institute of Mental Health, 54668 07-4737 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Pollock in statistical area 630 of the Alaskan Gulf, 54604 07-4729 Pollock in statistical area of 620 in the Alaskan Gulf, 54604-54605 07-4730 Shallow-water species; opening to vessels using trawl gear in Gulf of Alaska, 54603-54604 07-4728 NOTICES Coastal zone management programs and estuarine sanctuaries: Consistency appeals— Mill River Pipeline, LLC, 54642 E7-19047 Weaver's Cove Energy, LLC, 54642-54643 E7-19049 Scientific research permit applications, determinations, etc., 54643 E7-18974 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Alaska Region Subsistence Resource Commission, 54679-54680 E7-18949 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Nuclear Waste and Materials Advisory Committee, 54693-54694 E7-19013 Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 54694-54696 E7-18980 E7-19014 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Tennessee Valley Authority, 54691-54693 E7-19008 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Occupational safety and health standards: Diacetyl and food flavorings containing diacetyl; occupational exposure, 54619-54621 E7-19087 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54696 E7-19043 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* Family Day (Proc. 8178), 54809-54810 07-4767 Gold Star Mother's Day (Proc. 8179), 54811-54812 07-4768 National POW/MIA Recognition Day (Proc. 8177), 54805-54808 07-4766 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54696-54697 E7-18920 Securities: Suspension of trading— Biomaxx Systems, Inc., 54697-54698 07-4759 Evolution Global Capital Partners, Inc., 54698 07-4760 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 54698-54702 E7-18954 E7-18958 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 54702-54704 E7-18957 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 54704-54705 E7-18955 E7-18956 Options Clearing Corp., 54705-54708 E7-18963 Southwestern Southwestern Power Administration NOTICES Power rates: Sam Rayburn Dam, 54652-54654 E7-18950 State State Department NOTICES Arms Export Control Act: Determinations, 54708 E7-19000 Nonproliferation measures imposition: Iranian and North Korean entities, 54708-54709 E7-18997 Korea Mining & Development Corp., 54709 E7-18994 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee, 54713-54714 E7-18938 Railroad services abandonment: CSX Transportation, Inc., 54714-54715 E7-18831 Textile Textile Agreements Implementation Committee See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Railroad Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board RULES Workplace drug and alcohol testing programs: Test cancellation procedures; CFR correction, 54600 07-55511 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service RULES Merchandise, special classes: Import restrictions— Guatemala; archaeological and ethnological materials, 54538-54539 07-4748 Practice before the Internal Revenue Service; regulatory modification, 54540-54555 E7-18918 PROPOSED RULES Practice before the Internal Revenue Service; regulatory modifications, 54621-54622 E7-18919 NOTICES U.S. ownership of foreign securities survey; reporting requirements, 54715-54716 E7-18944 U.S. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 54671 E7-18943 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Merchandise, special classes: Import restrictions— Guatemala; archaeological and ethnological materials, 54538-54539 07-4748 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative; land and sea environments, 54671-54672 E7-19035 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Compensation, pension, burial, and related benefits: Veterans, surviving spouses, and surviving children; improved pension regulations, 54776-54803 E7-18745 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Communications Commission, 54720-54774 E7-18245 E7-18248 Part III Veterans Affairs Department, 54776-54803 E7-18745 Part IV Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 54805-54812 07-4766 07-4767 07-4768 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 186 Wednesday, September 26, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 RIN 0563-AC02 Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
(FCIC)finalizes the Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions to make policy revisions that would allow expansion of the fresh market sweet corn coverage into additional areas where the crop is produced, and will allow coverage for fresh market sweet corn that is sold through direct marketing. The changes will be effective for the 2008 and succeeding crop years for all counties with a contract change date on or after the effective date of this rule and for the 2009 and succeeding crop years for counties with a contract change date prior to the effective date of this rule. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Williams, Risk Management Specialist, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility—Mail Stop 0812, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone
(816)926-7730. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has determined that this rule is non-significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through November 30, 2007. E-Government Act Compliance FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). Federal Assistance Program This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought. Environmental Evaluation This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed. Background On Friday, July 28, 2006, FCIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the **Federal Register** at 71 FR 42770-42775 to amend § 457.129 Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of the action is to provide policy changes to allow for the expansion of fresh market sweet corn coverage into additional areas where the crop is produced and to allow coverage for fresh market sweet corn when it is marketed through direct marketing. The changes will be effective for the 2008 and succeeding crop years for all counties with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2007. The public was afforded 60 days to submit written comments and opinions. A total of 66 comments were received from 3 commenters. The commenters were an insurance service organization and two approved insurance providers. The comments received and FCIC's responses are as follows: *Comment:* Two commenters stated the definition of “allowable cost” may vary by region as is shown in the Special Provisions. For example, the Special Provisions in Adams County, Colorado states “* * * harvesting, grading, packing containers, hauling and selling” * * *, while the Broward County, Florida Special Provisions has “* * * picking, grading, packing containers, hauling and selling * * *”. The commenters indicated the definition could be beneficial in the Crop Provisions, especially if the intent is to move more of the common details from the Special Provisions to this definition. *Response:* The definition will be beneficial to allow producers to see the types of costs that are considered allowable costs. However, the specifics must still be contained in the Special Provisions because the costs associated with harvesting fresh market sweet corn vary by region and because terminology also varies by region. The definition has been retained in the final rule. *Comment:* Two commenters stated in the definition of “allowable cost” it is allowed to deduct “any additional charges specified in the Special Provisions.” They questioned how the average net value is determined when only some of the containers incurred additional charges such as cooling charges. *Response:* The commenter is correct that not all harvested sweet corn production incurs additional charges such as cooling charges. However, although the average net value per container is used, the net value is established for each container. Therefore, some containers will have the additional costs subtracted and others will not. Once the net values are all totaled and divided by the total number of containers sold, the result should be approximately the same. *Comment:* Three commenters stated the definition of “crop year” is confusing for a county that has only a spring planted practice. They questioned when the crop year begins for such a practice. *Response:* The commenter is correct that the definition of “crop year” fails to address those counties where there may only be a spring planting practice. While no change was proposed for the definition of “crop year,” FCIC has revised the definition to clarify the crop year for counties where there is only a spring planting practice. *Comment:* Three commenters found the definition of “minimum value” to be useful in the Crop Provisions but questioned if each reference of “minimum value” should be followed by the term “contained in the actuarial documents” as the term is contained in the definition. *Response:* The commenter is correct that the term “contained in the actuarial documents” is not needed when referencing the “minimum value” since the definition of “minimum value” specifies where it can be found, and FCIC has removed the term accordingly. FCIC has also revised the definition to state the amount can be found in the Special Provisions since this is the specific document where the information will be contained. *Comment:* All of the commenters stated it would be more appropriate to revise the term “net value per container” to “average net value per container” as that is how the term is used in the Crop Provisions. The commenters also questioned why the proposed rule stated a net value for each container would never be calculated as it would be a complex and time consuming process. The commenters suggested if the definition is not applicable to direct marketing, it should be clearly noted as such. *Response:* The commenter is correct that the term used is “average net value per container.” However, since the term “net value” is used in the term “average net value per container,” it is appropriate to also define this term and FCIC has revised the definition accordingly. FCIC has also added a definition of “average net value per container” to specify it is a dollar amount obtained by totaling the net value of all containers sold and dividing this total by the number of containers of all sweet corn production sold. It would be cumbersome, time consuming, and create vulnerabilities to list and itemize on the worksheet each and every individual container of sweet corn and subtract from each the allowable cost. Further, the difference in the results from using the average versus the individual net values is not significant. *Comment:* Two commenters suggested while revising the definition of “practical to replant” was not in the proposed rule, it may be a good time to revise the provisions so that it is consistent with other Crop Provisions. The comments suggested removing the phrase “ In lieu of the definition of ‘Practical to Replant’ contained in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, practical to replant is defined as * * *” and replacing it with “In lieu of the definition contained in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, our determination * * * *Response:* While no changes were proposed to the definition of “practical to replant,” the recommended changes are not substantive in nature and will make the provision more readable. Therefore, FCIC has revised the definition accordingly. *Comment:* Two commenters suggested removing the comma after “Basic Provisions” contained in section 3(c). *Response:* While no changes were proposed to the definition of “practical to replant,” the recommended changes are not substantive in nature and will make the provision more readable. Therefore, FCIC has revised the definition accordingly. *Comment:* Two commenters suggested section 3(d) be revised from “* * * one of the most recent three crop years” to “* * * one of the three most recent crop years.” *Response:* FCIC has made the change accordingly. *Comment:* Three commenters expressed concern with the text in section 3(f) “will be deemed to have been destroyed.” They each stated the language is contained in several other Crop Provisions and have been advised the term means that no production will be counted against such acreage and would hold true if such acreage was later harvested. They believed this is a conflict with section 14(c)(3) of these Crop Provisions which states “The value of all harvested production of sweet corn from the insurable acreage” is included as the total value of production to count for the unit. This would also apply to the amount of appraised production determined during an appraisal for unharvested acreage. The commenters recommended the text be revised and clarified so that all parties understand the provision with the same meaning. Two of the commenters suggested in section 3(f) to add a comma in front of “to the extent * * *” and revise the phrase “even though” to “even if.” *Response:* The purpose of proposed section 3(f) is to limit the liability for any acreage of sweet corn that is damaged in the first stage. If the producer's sweet corn, as well as other sweet corn acreage in the area, is damaged in the first stage to the extent most producers would not provide further care for their sweet corn, the indemnity payable for the insured producer's sweet corn acreage will be based on the amount of insurance for the first stage. This will make the provision consistent with section 14(c) of the Crop Provisions, and allow the damaged sweet corn to be appraised to determine the value of production to count for such acreage. At that time the insured must either agree or not agree with the appraised potential production. If such an agreement is not reached, in accordance with section 14(c)(2), insurance will continue until the crop is harvested; however, any indemnity will be paid based on an amount of insurance for the first stage. FCIC has revised section 3(f) to clarify the provisions and remove reference to “deemed to be destroyed”. FCIC will clarify all other Crop Provisions containing this language when proposed revisions are made. *Comment:* One commenter stated section 4 should be revised to move the contract change date for all counties in Georgia to November 30. *Response:* FCIC did not include any revisions to section 4 in the proposed rule, the recommended change is substantive in nature, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment. Therefore, no change will be made. *Comment:* One commenter requested the cancellation and termination dates contained in section 5 for all counties in Georgia be moved to February 15. If the change is made, the sales closing date for all Georgia counties must also be changed to February 15 and the fall planting period for Georgia should be moved to the end of the crop year rather than have the crop year begin with the fall planting period. *Response:* The impact of moving the fall planting period to the end of the crop year would be a major change and would affect multiple processes including actuarial, data and financial accounting systems. Since no changes to section 5 were proposed, the recommended change is substantive in nature, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment on the recommended changes, the recommendations cannot be incorporated in the final rule. No change has been made. *Comment:* Two commenters stated they agreed with the provisions contained in section 8(c) that will allow coverage for direct marketed sweet corn as long as the necessary procedures are in place for determining and documenting the amount of production to count. *Response:* When direct marketing is allowed by the Special Provisions or by written agreement, producers will be required to provide a 15-day notice before harvest begins so insurance providers may conduct an appraisal of the sweet corn in accordance with section 13. If notice is not provided, section 13(c) specifically states such failure “* * * will result in an appraised amount of production to count of not less than the dollar amount of insurance (per acre) * * *” An appraisal of the sweet corn and/or any acceptable records of harvest will be used to compute the value of production to count. As with other crops that allow insurance for direct marketing, FCIC approved loss adjustment procedures will provide the requirements for documenting production that is sold by direct market. *Comment:* Two commenters suggested deleting the “If” at the beginning of section 9(a)(3) because the redesignated
(a)now ends with the word “if:” They also thought it might read better if the two phrases in section 9(a)(3) were reversed to “The final day of the planting period has not passed at the time the crop was damaged.” *Response:* FCIC agrees with the commenters and has revised section 9(a)(3). *Comment:* Two commenters suggested section 9(b) should contain language to specify the crop is damaged in order to lead in to provisions 9(b)(1) and (2). The commenters asked what would happen if the crop is damaged towards the end of the planting period and moisture that came with the storm would not allow the acreage to dry out to be replanted until after the final planting date for the planting period. They asked if this situation would require the crop be replanted per the provisions contained in section 9(a) assuming it is still practical, or would the insured have the option as indicated in provisions 9(b). *Response:* It is unnecessary for section 9(b) to specify damage to the crop has occurred. The definition of “practical to replant” contained in these Crop Provisions specifically states there must be “loss or damage to the insured crop * * *” With respect to the commenters' question as to which of the provisions would be applicable when excess moisture occurs at the end of one planting period and the acreage cannot be replanted until after the final planting date, section 9(b) would apply provided that the acreage is located in a county that has fall or winter planting periods. If only spring planted sweet corn is insured in the county, the three criteria contained in section 9(a) must be applicable to determine if the acreage should be replanted. *Comment:* Two commenters recommend section 11(a)(2) be revised to clarify fire as a cause of loss must be due to natural causes. *Response:* In addition to the Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Provisions, the Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions are applicable for sweet corn. Section 12 of the Basic Provisions states all specified causes of loss must be due to a naturally occurring event. Adding the suggested language could be redundant and could cause confusion by suggesting that the other listed causes of loss do not have to be due to natural causes. Therefore, no change has been made. *Comment:* Two commenters suggested removing from section 11(b)(2), the phrase “that occurs during the insurance period” as it is already contained in section 11(a). *Response:* FCIC has made the change accordingly. *Comment:* Two commenters suggested the replant provisions contained in section 12 should be revised to align with proposed changes in the Basic Provisions. *Response:* Since the final rule has not been published for the Basic Provisions and FCIC is still reviewing all comments, it would be premature to make any changes to the replant provisions. Once the Basic Provisions final rule is published, FCIC will determine whether conforming changes need to be made in the Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Provisions. No change has been made. *Comment:* According to three commenters, section 13(a)(3) references the calendar date for the end of the insurance period; however, the closest thing to a calendar date is section 10(f) which states “100 days after the date of planting or replanting * * * ” *Response:* Growing conditions are not the same in all areas where sweet corn is grown. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a single calendar date to end the insurance period. Instead, FCIC revised section 10 to allow the end of the insurance period to be either 100 days after planting or replanting, or a specified date contained in the Special Provisions. If a specific calendar date is not provided in the Special Provisions, insurance providers can still determine the calendar date by calculating the date that is 100 days after the producer reports the crop was planted or replanted. No change has been made. *Comment:* Two commenters stated it would be costly for insurance providers to conduct a pre-harvest appraisal as required in section 13(b) for all direct marketed policies that are in a loss situation. They asked if there was a better way to handle these situations. Another commenter questioned why the proposed rule contained language requiring production records from producers as the sweet corn crop insurance program is not based on producer's actual production history (APH). The commenter indicated insurance providers cannot assume the list of record types and requirements contained in the Crop Insurance Handbook are acceptable since the list is for APH based crops. *Response:* Without appraising the sweet corn crop before it is sold by direct market there is no way to adequately determine if the value or amount of production was accurately reported because there are no independent sources to verify production associated with direct market sales. If the commenter knows of another way to accurately determine the production, FCIC is willing to consider it for any future rulemaking. FCIC approved loss adjustment procedures will be updated to provide guidelines in what types production records can be used to verify harvested production that is sold by direct marketing. No changes have been made. *Comment:* Two commenters suggested section 14(b)(3) should be consistent with other steps in the claim for indemnity calculation and should be changed from “total the results * * *” to “Totaling the results * * *” *Response:* Although no changes were proposed, the recommended change is not significant and would make the provisions read more consistently. *Comment:* Three commenters indicated in the example of a claim for indemnity contained in section 14(b)(5), there is no production to count for the 15.0 acres of Stage 1 acreage. They stated it gives the reader the impression no production will ever be assessed for acreage damaged in Stage 1. If this is the case, then why are there appraisal procedures for sweet corn acreage in Stage 1, and why under section 14(c) must insurance providers account for potential production when agreement is established on the appraised amount of production? They asked whether the agreed amount will always be zero. *Response:* FCIC did not intend for the example of a claim for indemnity to imply sweet corn acreage damaged in Stage 1 will always be zero production to count. As provided in section 14(c), the value of all potential production and harvested production will be used to determine the amount of the indemnity. FCIC has revised the example contained in section 14(b) to clarify the 15.0 acre field was destroyed by flood and the appraisals determined that there was no potential production to count. *Comment:* One commenter stated the language in section 14(c)(2) was confusing. While it appeared the intent or meaning of the sentence did not change, the sentence does not read well as altered. *Response:* FCIC has rephrased the language in section 14(c)(2). *Comment:* A commenter indicated the final sentence in section 14(c)(3)(ii) which states “Harvest production that is damaged [* * *] will not be counted as production to count unless such production is sold” needs further clarification. The commenter stated some insured producers who cannot market the corn as fresh market sweet corn will sell it as chopped/silage, and in this case, the crop was sold but was not sold as fresh market sweet corn. *Response:* The language in section 14(c)(3)(ii) pertains to harvested marketable sweet corn production that is not sold and unmarketable production that is later sold. Section 1 of these Crop Provisions defines “marketable sweet corn” as “Sweet corn that is sold or grades U.S. No. 1 or better in accordance with the requirements of the United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Corn.” There is nothing in the definition that requires the sweet corn to be sold as fresh market sweet corn before being considered marketable. This means that production that was previously unmarketable due to damage is considered marketable if it is sold and, even though it was sold for use other than fresh market sweet corn, it counts as production to count in accordance with section 14(c)(3)(ii). No change has been made. *Comment:* Three commenters stated section 14(c)(4) is the only reference in the Settlement of Claim to direct marketed production, it gives the impression it is the only method by which direct marketed production will be accounted for and valued. The provision does not give any regard to the requirement that if any acreage will be direct marketed, such acreage will be appraised and such appraised production and any acceptable records will be used to value the amount of production. The commenters questioned why this is a change from current Special Provision statements which specifies the value of production to count that is sold by direct marketing will be the greater of the actual value or the provisions contained in section 14(c)(2). The commenters asked why the Crop Provisions do not allow for the deduction of allowable costs for production that is sold by direct marketing when the Strawberry Crop Provisions do allow the deduction. *Response:* Regarding the omission in section 14(c)(4) of provisions concerning appraised potential production for direct marketed production, FCIC has revised the provisions to specify the total value of production sold by direct marketing will be the greater of the actual value received, or dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of appraised sweet corn that is sold by direct marketing by the minimum value. The strawberry crop insurance program is a pilot program administered by FCIC. Strawberries are unique from other crops since strawberries that are sold by direct marketing or through brokers must be packed in containers. Fresh market sweet corn sold by direct marketing does not have a packing standard like strawberries and in most cases, direct marketed sweet corn production does not incur many of the costs of harvesting, such as grading and packing containers. *Comment:* Two commenters did not agree with the proposed language contained in section 16(b)(1) to average the net value of all containers sold and then apply the minimum value. The commenter did not agree with the approach and recommended the minimum value be applied to the net value of each container sold individually. *Response:* While the commenters suggested a change to the proposed language contained in section 16, no information was provided to support why such change should be made in calculating the value of harvested production. As stated above, it would be time consuming and burdensome to calculate the net value for each container separately. FCIC has determined that using the average net values will still provide the appropriate value for the containers. No change has been made. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 Crop insurance, Fresh market sweet corn, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Final Rule Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 for the 2008 and succeeding crop years as follows: PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(p). 2. Amend 457.129 as follows: A. Revise the introductory text. B. Remove the paragraph regarding priority preceding section 1. C. Remove the reference of “(§ 457.8)” from the definitions of “Crop year,” and “Practical to replant” in section 1; and from sections 3(a), 3(c), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9(a), 9(b), 10, 11(a), 11(b), 12(a), 12(c), and 13. D. Remove the reference to “fresh market” where it appears in the definition of “planting period” in section 1, and section 16(a)(1). E. Add definitions in section 1 for “allowable cost,” “amount of insurance (per acre),” “average net value per container,” “minimum value,” and “net value;” remove the definitions of “excess rain,” “excess wind,” and “freeze;” and revise the definitions of “container,” “crop year,” “harvest,” “marketable sweet corn,” and “practical to replant.” F. Revise section 2. G. Amend section 3(a) by removing the phrase “(Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities)”. H. Revise section 3(c). I. Redesignate section 3 paragraphs
(d)and
(e)as paragraphs
(e)and (f), add a new paragraph (d), and revise newly redesignated paragraph (f). J. Amend section 4 by removing the phrase “(Contract Changes)”. K. Amend section 5 by removing the phrase “(Life of Policy, Cancellation, and Termination)”. L. Amend section 6 by removing the phrase “(Report of Acreage)”. M. Amend section 7 by removing the phrase “(Annual Premium)”. N. Amend the introductory text of section 8 by removing the phrase “(Insured Crop)”. O. Revise section 8(c)(3). P. Revise section 9. Q. Amend the introductory text in section 10 by removing the phrase “(Insurance Period)”. R. Revise section 10(f). S. Revise section 11. T. Amend sections 12(a) and
(c)by removing the phrase “(Replanting Payment)”. U. Revise section 13. V. Amend section 14(b)(2) by removing the phrase “(see section 3(d))”, and adding in its place “(see section 3(e))”. W. Amend section 14(b)(3) by removing the words “Total the” and adding in its place “Totaling the”; X. In section 14, revise paragraphs (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(i), and (c)(3). Add new paragraphs (c)(1)(v), (c)(4), and add an example immediately following paragraph (b)(5). Y. In section 16, revise paragraph (b); redesignate current paragraph
(c)as (d), and add a new paragraph (c). The revisions and additions to § 457.129 read as follows: § 457.129 Fresh market sweet corn crop insurance provisions. The fresh market sweet corn crop insurance provisions for the 2008 and succeeding crop years for all counties with a contract change date on or after the effective date of this rule and for the 2009 and succeeding crop years for all counties with a contract change date prior to the effective date of this rule, as follows: 1. Definitions *Allowable cost.* The dollar amount per container for harvesting, packing, and handling as shown in the Special Provisions. *Amount of insurance (per acre)* . The dollar amount of coverage per acre obtained by multiplying the reference maximum dollar amount shown on the actuarial documents by the coverage level percentage you elect. *Average net value per container.* The dollar amount obtained by totaling the net values of all containers of sweet corn sold and dividing the result by the total number of containers of all sweet corn sold. *Container.* The unit of measurement for the insured crop as specified in the Special Provisions. *Crop year.* In lieu of the definition of “crop year” contained in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, for counties with fall, winter, and spring planting periods or counties with fall and spring planting periods, the period of time that begins on the first day of the earliest planting period for fall planted sweet corn and continues through the last day of the insurance period for spring planted sweet corn. For counties with only spring planting periods, the period of time that begins on the earliest planting period for spring planted sweet corn and continues through the last day of the insurance period for spring planted sweet corn. The crop year is designated by the calendar year in which spring planted sweet corn is harvested. *Harvest.* Separation of ears of sweet corn from the plant by hand or machine. *Marketable sweet corn* . Sweet corn that is sold for any purpose or grades U.S. No. 1 or better in accordance with the requirements of the United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Corn. *Minimum value.* The dollar amount per container shown in the Special Provisions we will use to value marketable production to count. *Net value.* The dollar value of packed and sold sweet corn obtained by subtracting the allowable cost and any additional charges specified in the Special Provisions from the gross value per container of sweet corn sold. This result may not be less than zero. *Practical to replant* —In lieu of the definition in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, our determination, after loss or damage to the insured crop, based on factors, including but not limited to moisture availability, condition of the field, marketing windows, and time to crop maturity, that replanting to the insured crop will allow the crop to attain maturity prior to the calendar date for the end of the insurance period (inability to obtain seed will not be considered when determining if it is practical to replant). 2. Unit Division A basic unit, as defined in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, will also be established for each planting period. 3. Amounts of Insurance and Production Stages
(c)The production reporting requirements contained in section 3 of the Basic Provisions do not apply to sweet corn.
(d)If specified in the Special Provisions, we will limit your amount of insurance per acre if you have not produced the minimum amount of production of sweet corn contained in the Special Provisions in at least one of the three most recent crop years.
(f)The indemnity payable for any acreage of sweet corn will be based on the stage the plants had achieved when damage occurred. Any acreage of sweet corn damaged in the first stage to the extent that the majority of producers in the area would not normally further care for it will have an amount of insurance based on the first stage for the purposes of establishing an indemnity even if you continue to care for the damaged sweet corn. 8. Insured Crop
(c)* * *
(3)Grown for direct marketing, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions or by written agreement. 9. Insurable Acreage In addition to the provisions of section 9 of the Basic Provisions any acreage of sweet corn damaged during the planting period in which initial planting took place:
(a)Must be replanted if:
(1)Less than 75 percent of the plant stand remains;
(2)It is practical to replant; and
(3)The final day of the planting period has not passed at the time the crop was damaged.
(b)Whenever sweet corn is initially planted during the fall or winter planting periods and the final planting date for the planting period has passed, but it is considered practical to replant, you may elect:
(1)To replant such acreage and collect any replant payment due as specified in section 12. The initial planting period coverage will continue for such replanted acreage; or
(2)Not to replant such acreage and receive an indemnity based on the stage of growth the plants had attained at the time of damage. However, such an election will result in the acreage being uninsurable in the subsequent planting period. 10. Insurance Period
(f)100 days after the date of planting or replanting, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. 11. Causes of Loss
(a)In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided only against the following causes of loss that occur during the insurance period:
(1)Adverse weather conditions;
(2)Fire;
(3)Wildlife;
(4)Volcanic eruption;
(5)Earthquake;
(6)Insects, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of pest control measures;
(7)Plant disease, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of disease control measures; or
(8)Failure of the irrigation water supply, if caused by an insured cause of loss that occurs during the insurance period.
(b)In addition to the causes of loss excluded in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure against damage or loss due to:
(1)Failure to harvest in a timely manner unless harvest is prevented by one of the insurable causes of loss specified in section 11(a); or
(2)Failure to market the sweet corn unless such failure is due to actual physical damage caused by an insured cause of loss as specified in section 11(a). For example, we will not pay you an indemnity if you are unable to market due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of any person to accept production. 13. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss In addition to the requirements contained in section 14 of the Basic Provisions, if you intend to claim an indemnity on any unit:
(a)You also must give us notice not later than 72 hours after the earliest of:
(1)The time you discontinue harvest of any acreage on the unit;
(2)The date harvest normally would start if any acreage on the unit will not be harvested; or
(3)The calendar date for the end of the insurance period.
(b)If insurance is permitted by the Special Provisions or by written agreement on acreage with production that will be sold by direct marketing, you must notify us at least 15 days before any production from any unit will be sold by direct marketing. We will conduct an appraisal that will be used to determine the value of your production to count for production that is sold by direct marketing. If damage occurs after this appraisal, we will conduct an additional appraisal if you notify us that additional damage has occurred. These appraisals, and/or any acceptable production records provided by you, will be used to determine the value of your production to count.
(c)Failure to give timely notice that production will be sold by direct marketing will result in an appraised amount of production to count of not less than the dollar amount of insurance (per acre) for the applicable stage if such failure results in our inability to accurately determine the value of production. 14. Settlement of Claim
(b)* * *
(4)* * *
(ii)For catastrophic risk protection coverage, the result of multiplying the total value of production to be counted (see section 14(c)) by fifty-five percent; and
(5)Multiplying the result of section 14(b)(4) by your share. For example: You have a 100 percent share in 65.3 acres of fresh market sweet corn in the unit (15.0 acres in stage 1 and 50.3 acres in the final stage), with a dollar amount of insurance of $600 per acre. The 15.0 acre field was damaged by flood and appraisals of the crop determined there was no potential production to be counted. From the 50.3 acre field, you are only able to harvest 5,627 containers of sweet corn. The net value of all sweet corn production sold ($3.11 per container) is greater than the Minimum Value per container ($2.50). The 5,627 containers sold × $3.11 average net value per container = $17,500 value of your production to count. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows: 1 15.0 acres × $600 amount of insurance = $9,000 and 50.3 acres × $600 amount of insurance = $30,180; 2 $9,000 × .65 (percent for stage 1) = $5,850 and $30,180 × 1.00 (percent for final stage) = $30,180; 3 $5,850 + $30,180 = $36,030 amount of insurance for the unit; 4 $36,030−$17,500 value of production to count = $18,530 loss; 5 $18,530 × 100 percent share = $18,530 indemnity payment.
(c)* * *
(1)* * *
(iii)That is damaged solely by uninsured causes;
(iv)For which you fail to provide acceptable production records; or
(v)From which insurable production is sold by direct marketing and you fail to meet the requirements contained in section 13(b) of these Crop Provisions;
(2)The value of the following appraised sweet corn production will not be less than the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the number of containers of appraised sweet corn by the minimum value for the planting period:
(i)Unharvested marketable sweet corn production (unharvested production that is damaged or defective due to insurable causes and is not marketable will not be counted as production to count unless such production is later harvested and sold for any purpose);
(3)The value of all harvested production of sweet corn from the insurable acreage, except production that is sold by direct marketing as specified in section (c)(4) below:
(i)For sold production, will be the greater of:
(A)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of sweet corn sold by the minimum value; or
(B)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the average net value per container from all sweet corn sold by the total number of all containers of sweet corn sold.
(ii)For marketable sweet corn production that is not sold, will be the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the number of containers of such sweet corn by the minimum value for the planting period. Harvested production that is damaged or defective due to insurable causes and is not marketable will not be counted as production to count unless such production is sold.
(4)If all the requirements of insurability are met, the value of insurable production that is sold by direct marketing will be the greater of:
(i)The actual value received by you for direct marketed production; or
(ii)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of appraised sweet corn sold by direct marketing by the minimum value. 16. Minimum Value Option
(b)In lieu of the provisions contained in section 14(c)(3) of these Crop Provisions, the total value of harvested production that is not sold by direct marketing will be determined as follows:
(1)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the average net value per container from all sweet corn sold by the total number of all containers of sweet corn sold (this result may not be less than the minimum value option amount shown in the actuarial documents);
(2)For marketable sweet corn production that is not sold, the value of such production will be the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of such sweet corn by the minimum value for the planting period. Harvested production that is damaged or defective due to insurable causes and is not marketable will not be included as production to count.
(c)If all the requirements of insurability are met, the value of insurable production that is sold by direct marketing will be the greater of:
(1)The actual value received by you for direct marketed production; or
(2)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of sweet corn sold by direct marketing by the minimum value. Signed in Washington, DC, on September 12, 2007. Eldon Gould, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-18781 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 627 RIN 3052-AC38 Title IV Conservators, Receivers, and Voluntary Liquidations; Priority of Claims—Subordinated Debt AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ACTION: Direct final rule with opportunity to comment. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, we), issues a direct final rule amending its priority of claims regulations. The effect of the amendments is to provide that, when the assets of a Farm Credit System (FCS or System) institution in liquidation are distributed, the claims of holders of subordinated debt will be paid after all general creditor claims. DATES: If no significant adverse comment is received on or before October 26, 2007, these regulations will be effective upon the expiration of 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Notice of the effective date will be published in the **Federal Register** . If significant adverse comment is received on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and that provision may be addressed separately from the remainder of the rule, the FCA will withdraw that amendment, paragraph, or section and adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of a significant comment. In such case, we will then tell you how we expect to continue further rulemaking on the provisions that were the subject of significant adverse comment. ADDRESSES: We offer a variety of methods for you to submit comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, we encourage commenters to submit comments by e-mail or through the Agency's Web site or the Federal eRulemaking Portal. As faxes are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, please consider another means to submit your comment if possible. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail:* Send us an e-mail at *reg-comm@fca.gov.* • *Agency Web site:* *http://www.fca.gov.* Once you are at the Web site, select “Public Commenters,” then “Public Comments.” • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Gary K. Van Meter, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090. • *FAX* :
(703)883-4477. Posting and processing of faxes may be delayed. Please consider another means to comment, if possible. You may review copies of comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our Web site at *http://www.fca.gov.* Once you are in the Web site, select “Public Commenters,” then select “Public Comments,” then select “Submitting a Comment” and follow the instructions there. We will show your comments as submitted, but for technical reasons we may omit items such as logos and special characters. Identifying information that you provide, such as phone numbers and addresses, will be publicly available. However, we will attempt to remove e-mail addresses to help reduce Internet spam. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4414, TTY
(703)883-4434, or Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4020, TTY
(703)883-4020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Objective Our objective in this direct final rule is to clarify the claims priority of subordinated debt in the event of the liquidation of a System institution. II. Background Part 627 of our regulations governs the conduct of System institution conservatorships and receiverships. Sections 627.2745, 627.2750, and 627.2752 set forth the priority of claims by creditors for the distribution of the assets of associations, banks and other Farm Credit institutions, respectively, in liquidation. Section 627.2755(b) provides that, “[f]ollowing the payment of all claims, the receiver shall distribute the remainder of the assets of the institution to the owners of stock, participation certificates, and other equities in accordance with the priorities for impairment set forth in the bylaws of the institution.” These provisions do not expressly provide for payments on claims by holders of unsecured obligations that, according to the terms of such obligations, are subordinated to the claims of general creditors (subordinated debt). A System bank that recently issued subordinated debt has requested that we amend our regulations to clarify that holders of subordinated debt would be paid after general creditors are paid. The System bank made this request in a comment to a proposed rule published on March 12, 2007, that would provide priority of claims rights to System banks if they make payments under a contractual agreement to reallocate joint and several liability. 1 The Agency has adopted that proposal as a final rule concurrent with this direct final rule. 1 *See* 72 FR 10939. Subordinated debt is a type of obligation whose repayment, in a liquidation context, is subordinated to the claims of general creditors but is paid ahead of claims of equity holders. Subordinated debt that meets certain characteristics can be an attractive method of funding for regulated financial institutions, such as System institutions and commercial banks, because of the lower cost of funding and the ability to include some or all of the debt in regulatory capital. 2 An institution can issue more than one class of subordinated debt and can provide for all classes of the debt to have the same claims priority upon liquidation. Alternatively, an institution with multiple classes of subordinated debt can provide for one or more classes of subordinated debt to be subordinated to one or more other classes of subordinated debt. 2 System institutions may include debt in regulatory capital only when the FCA determines that the debt is appropriate to be considered permanent capital or that the debt is the functional equivalent of core surplus or total surplus. *See* 12 U.S.C. 2154a(a)(1)(E); 12 CFR 615.5201 definition of permanent capital (7); 12 CFR 615.5301(b)(1)(iv) and (i)(6). This rule is intended to clarify the payment priority of subordinated debt holders with respect to holders of other debt and among holders of different classes of subordinated debt. III. Description of Rule Sections 627.2745, 627.2750, and 627.2752 are amended by adding language to each section to provide that, in the liquidation of banks, associations, and other Farm Credit institutions, respectively, the holders of claims subordinated to general creditors' claims will be paid after general creditors according to the priority specified in the written documents evidencing those claims. We have used the more general term “claims” to include, in addition to subordinated debt, any other instruments whose payment in liquidation is subordinated to payments to general creditors but ahead of payments made to equity holders under § 627.2755(b). Our rule is intended also to provide that the receiver will pay these claims in accordance with the subordination priorities established by the issuing institution. We note that, unlike the other paragraphs in §§ 627.2745, 627.2750, and 627.2752, the new paragraph in each section can cover multiple classes of claimants, and we are adding a reference to § 627.2755(a) to each new paragraph to clarify this. IV. Direct Final Rulemaking With the promulgation of this rule, the FCA is using the “Direct Final” procedure for rulemaking. Direct final rulemaking permits agencies to adopt noncontroversial rules on an expedited basis, without going through the usual proposal and final stages of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Direct final rulemaking was recommended for promulgation of noncontroversial rules by the Administrative Conference of the United States
(ACUS)in its Recommendation 95-4, adopted June 15, 1995. The FCA's use of innovative rulemaking techniques furthers its strategic goal of implementing effective and efficient regulations. We believe that the use of direct final rulemaking in appropriate circumstances can streamline the rulemaking process for noncontroversial rules by reducing the time and resources needed for development, review, clearance, and publication, while still affording the public adequate opportunity to comment on or object to a rule. In direct final rulemaking, the agency gives notice that a rule will become final at a specified future date unless the agency receives significant adverse comment on the rule during the comment period established in the rulemaking notice. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-59, *et seq.* (APA), supports this streamlined technique of rulemaking. Direct final rulemaking is justified under section 553(b)(B) of the APA. Section 553(b)(B) is the APA's “good cause” exemption for omitting notice and comment on a rule where an agency finds “that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In direct final rulemaking, the agency finds that the rule is sufficiently straightforward and noncontroversial to make normal notice and comment unnecessary under the APA. However, rather than eliminating public comment altogether, as would be permissible under section 553(b)(B), the agency gives the public an opportunity to rebut the agency's conclusion that public input on the rule is unnecessary. Notwithstanding this “good cause” rationale under section 553(b)(B), direct final rulemaking also meets the basic notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, although the timing and format of notice and opportunity for comment necessarily differs from a typical notice-and-comment rulemaking. If, during the comment period provided, the agency receives a significant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and that provision may be addressed separately from the remainder of the rule, the agency commits to withdraw that amendment, paragraph, or section and adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not subject of a significant comment. In such case, we would then notify the public how we expect to continue further rulemaking on the provisions that were the subject of the significant adverse comment. A significant adverse comment is defined as one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In general, a significant adverse comment would raise an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response from the agency in a notice-and-comment proceeding. The FCA believes that these amendments fit the category of rules appropriate for direct final rulemaking. These changes merely clarify that holders of subordinated debt, which is subordinate to general creditors by definition and by the terms of the subordinated debt instruments, are entitled to payment in a liquidation only after general creditors are paid. For these reasons, the FCA does not anticipate that there will be significant adverse comment on this rulemaking. Nonetheless, in keeping with the recommended procedures, the FCA is providing a 30-day period from publication during which members of the public may comment on the rule. If significant adverse comment is received during the comment period, we will publish a notice of withdrawal of the relevant provisions of this rule that will also indicate how further rulemaking will proceed. If no significant adverse comment is received, the FCA will publish a notice of the effective date under section 5.17(c)(1) of the Act. V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the FCA hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 627 Agriculture, Banks, Banking, Claims, Rural areas. For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 627 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows: PART 627—TITLE IV CONSERVATORS, RECEIVERS, AND VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 627 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4.2, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 5.51, 5.58, 5.61 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2277a, 2277a-7, 2277a-10). Subpart B—Receivers and Receiverships 2. Amend § 627.2745 by adding a new paragraph
(i)to read as follows: § 627.2745 Priority of claims—associations.
(i)All claims that, by their terms, are subordinated in whole or in part to the claims of general creditors, other than distributions covered under § 627.2755(b). Such claims shall receive the priority specified in the written instruments that evidence the claims and, to the extent that the written documents provide different priorities for different categories of such claims, each category shall be considered a class of claims for purposes of § 627.2755(a). 3. Amend § 627.2750 by adding a new paragraph
(j)to read as follows: § 627.2750 Priority of claims—banks.
(j)All claims that, by their terms, are subordinated in whole or in part to the claims of general creditors, other than distributions covered under § 627.2755(b). Such claims shall receive the priority specified in the written instruments that evidence the claims and, to the extent that the written documents provide different priorities for different categories of such claims, each category shall be considered a class of claims for purposes of § 627.2755(a). 4. Amend § 627.2752 by adding a new paragraph
(h)to read as follows: § 627.2752 Priority of claims—other Farm Credit institutions.
(h)All claims that, by their terms, are subordinated in whole or in part to the claims of general creditors, other than distributions covered under § 627.2755(b). Such claims shall receive the priority specified in the written instruments that evidence the claims and, to the extent that the written documents provide different priorities for different categories of such claims, each category shall be considered a class of claims for purposes of § 627.2755(a). Dated: September 20, 2007. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. E7-18965 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 627 RIN 3052-AC16 Title IV Conservators, Receivers, and Voluntary Liquidations; Priority of Claims—Joint and Several Liability AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, we), issues this final rule amending the priority of claims regulations to provide priority of claims rights to Farm Credit System (System, FCS, Farm Credit) banks if they make payments under a reallocation agreement to holders of consolidated and System-wide obligations on behalf of a defaulting System bank. The final rule also clarifies that payments to a class of claims will be on a pro rata basis. DATES: *Effective Date:* This regulation will be effective 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. We will publish a notice of the effective date in the **Federal Register.** FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4414, TTY
(703)883-4434, or Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,
(703)883-4020, TTY
(703)883-4020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Objectives Our objectives in this final rule are to: • Provide System banks that make payments under a reallocation agreement to holders of consolidated and System-wide obligations of a defaulting bank the same priority of claims rights they would have for payments made under statutory joint and several calls by the FCA; and • Clarify that claims in the same class will receive payments on a pro rata basis if there are insufficient assets in a receivership to pay the entire class in full. II. Background A. Joint and Several Liability Under the Act System associations obtain funding by means of direct loans from their affiliated Farm Credit banks. The banks in turn obtain their funding primarily by issuing System-wide obligations to investors through the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (Funding Corporation). 1 The banks' authority to issue System-wide obligations is provided in section 4.2(d) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act). 2 Currently, all of the System's joint funding is through System-wide obligations. 3 1 The Funding Corporation is the fiscal agent of the System established under section 4.9 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2160). 2 12 U.S.C. 2153(d). 3 12 U.S.C. 2153(c). Investors in consolidated and System-wide obligations have three levels of repayment sources. The first level is a bank's own primary liability under section 4.4(a)(2)(A) of the Act 4 for its portion of any consolidated or System-wide obligation. The second level is payments made by the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) under section 4.4(d) of the Act if a bank is unable to pay its portion of liability on consolidated or System-wide obligations. The third level is joint and several calls made by FCA on nondefaulting banks under section 4.4(a)(2) of the Act in proportion to each bank's proportionate share of the aggregate available collateral 5 held by all nondefaulting banks, or in proportion to each bank's remaining assets if the aggregate available collateral does not fully satisfy the insured obligations of the defaulting bank. The Act provides subrogation rights to both the banks and the FCSIC for payments of insured obligations made on behalf of a defaulting bank under sections 4.4(a)(2)(E) 6 and 5.61(c)(1), 7 respectively. 4 12 U.S.C. 2155(a)(2)(A). 5 A bank's “available collateral” is defined in section 4.4(a)(2)(C) as “the amount (determined at the close of the last calendar quarter ending before such call) by which a bank's collateral * * * exceeds the collateral required to support the bank's outstanding notes, bonds, debentures, and other similar obligations.” 6 Section 4.4(a)(2)(E) provides: “Any System bank that, pursuant to a call by the [FCA], makes a payment of principal or interest to the holder of any consolidated or System-wide obligations issued on behalf of another System bank shall be subrogated to the rights of the holder against such other bank to the extent of such payment.” 7 Section 5.61(c) provides: “On the payment to an owner of an insured obligation issued on behalf of an insured System bank in receivership, the [FCSIC] shall be subrogated to all rights of the owner against the bank to the extent of the payment. * * * Subrogation * * * shall include the right on the part of the [FCSIC] to receive the same dividends from the proceeds of the assets of the bank as would have been payable to the owner on a claim for the insured obligation.” B. Proposed Rule We proposed an amendment to the priority of claims rule in response to a petition by System banks to provide the same subrogation rights to banks for making joint and several payments on insured obligations under a reallocation agreement that the banks would receive if they made payments under section 4.4(a)(2) of the Act. In recent years, the banks have discussed the benefits and feasibility of using a methodology for paying joint and several calls based on the proportion of total System-wide debt on which each nondefaulting bank is primarily liable. The banks have explored the possibility of entering into a reallocation agreement among themselves to pay a defaulting bank's maturing insured obligations as the Farm Credit Insurance Fund is nearing exhaustion but before statutory joint and several calls are triggered. The banks have informed us that, while they have generally agreed on the outlines of an agreement for payment based on individual banks' outstanding System-wide debt, a key to an agreement is that payments made would be entitled to the same payment rights as if the banks had made the payments under a statutory joint and several call. Such an agreement would be subject to Agency approval. The proposed revision to the priority of claims rule as well as the amendment to clarify the related payment of claims regulation on pro rata payments were published in the **Federal Register** on March 12, 2007. 8 The proposals had a 60-day comment period that ended on May 11, 2007. The proposals are described in Part III below. 8 *See* 72 FR 10939. See the preamble of this proposal for more in-depth discussion of the banks' joint and several liability under the Act. C. Comments on Proposed Rule We received three comments: One from the Farm Credit Council
(FCC)on behalf of all System institutions, and two others from System banks. All of the commenters fully supported the revision to the priority of claims rule as proposed and did not suggest any changes. Furthermore, the FCC letter stated that it offered no objections to our proposal to clarify that payments to a class of claims would be on a pro rata basis if there are insufficient funds to pay the class in full. One commenter also asked us to consider a rulemaking to add subordinated debt to the list of claims priority categories in part 627. At present, the liquidation priority of subordinated debt is not expressly addressed in our regulations. We agree that it is appropriate to specify the liquidation priority of claims of subordinated debtholders and are issuing a direct final rule on that subject concurrent with this final rule. III. Description of Final Rule Section 627.2750—Priority of Claims—Banks Section 627.2750 sets forth the priority of claims for banks in liquidation. Existing paragraph
(h)provides for payment of claims of holders of consolidated and System-wide obligations and of other System banks arising from their payments made under statutory joint and several calls. In the proposed rule, we proposed to revise this paragraph to include all claims of other System banks arising from their payments of consolidated and System-wide obligations under a reallocation agreement that is in writing and approved by the Agency. We adopt this provision as final. Section 627.2755—Payment of Claims Existing § 627.2755 contains several priority of claims provisions that apply to some or all types of System institutions that may be placed in receivership by the FCA under part 627 of our regulations. 9 In the proposed rule, we proposed to amend paragraph
(a)by removing language limiting the pro rata distribution requirement to association receiverships. This will clarify that, in all System institution receiverships, if there are insufficient funds to pay a class of claims in full, payments to such class must be on a pro rata basis. We adopt this provision as final. 9 We note that part 627 of FCA's regulations does not apply to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, also known as Farmer Mac. Regulations applicable to Farmer Mac are in parts 650-655 of FCA's regulations. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the FCA hereby certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 627 Agriculture, Banks, Banking, Claims, Rural areas. For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending part 627 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows: PART 627—TITLE IV CONSERVATORS, RECEIVERS, AND VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 627 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4.2, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 5.51, 5.58, 5.61 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2277a, 2277a-7, 2277a-10). Subpart B—Receivers and Receiverships 2. Revise § 627.2750(h) to read as follows: § 627.2750 Priority of claims—banks.
(h)All claims of holders of consolidated and System-wide bonds and all claims of the other Farm Credit banks arising from their payments on consolidated and System-wide bonds pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 2155 or pursuant to an agreement among the banks to reallocate the payments, provided the agreement is in writing and approved by the Farm Credit Administration. § 627.2755 [Amended] 3. Amend § 627.2755(a) by removing the words “described in § 627.2745” in the last sentence. Dated: September 20, 2007. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. E7-18968 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM367 Special Conditions No. 25-363-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Tire Debris Penetration of Fuel Tank Structure AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These novel or unusual design features include wing fuel tanks constructed of carbon fiber composite materials. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing standards. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Dostert, FAA, Propulsion/Mechanical Systems, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2132; facsimile
(425)227-1320. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied for an FAA type certificate for its new Boeing Model 787-8 passenger airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with a two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 476,000 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 381 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)21.17, Boeing must show that Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes (hereafter referred to as “the 787”) meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117, except §§ 25.809(a) and 25.812, which will remain at Amendment 25-115. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 787 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must also issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The 787 will incorporate a number of novel or unusual design features. Because of rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions for the 787 contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. The 787 will use carbon fiber composite materials for most of the wing fuel tank structure. The ability of aluminum wing skins, as has been conventionally used, to resist penetration or rupture when impacted by tire debris is understood from extensive experience. The ability of carbon fiber composite material to resist these hazards has not been established. There are no current airworthiness standards specifically addressing this hazard for all the exposed wing surfaces. The FAA issues these special conditions to maintain the level of safety envisioned in the existing airworthiness standards by establishing a standard for resistance to potential tire debris impacts to the 787 contiguous wing surfaces. Discussion Historically, accidents have resulted from uncontrolled fires caused by fuel leaks following penetration or rupture of the lower wing by fragments of tires or from uncontained engine failure. In one incident, in Honolulu, Hawaii, a tire on a Boeing Model 747 burst and tire debris penetrated a fuel tank access cover, causing a substantial fuel leak. Takeoff was aborted and passengers were evacuated down the emergency chutes into pools of fuel which fortunately had not ignited. This accident highlighted deficiencies in the then-existing title 14 CFR part 25 regulations pertaining to fuel retention following impact to fuel tanks by tire fragments. After a subsequent Boeing Model 737 accident in Manchester, England, in which a fuel tank access panel was penetrated by engine debris, the FAA amended § 25.963 to require that fuel tank access panels be resistant to both tire and engine debris. An amendment to 14 CFR part 121 required operators to modify their existing fleets of airplanes with impact resistant fuel access panels. The amendment only addressed fuel tank access panels since service experience at the time indicated that the lower wing skin of a conventional, subsonic airplane provided adequate, inherent capability to resist tire and engine debris threats. Section 25.963(e) requires showing by analysis or tests that fuel tank access covers, “* * *minimize penetration and deformation by tire fragments, low energy engine debris, or other likely debris.” Advisory Circular
(AC)25.963-1 defines the region of the wing that is vulnerable to impact damage from these sources and provides a method to substantiate that the rule has been met for tire fragments. No specific requirements were established for the contiguous wing areas into which the access covers are installed because of the inherent ability of conventional aluminum wing skins to resist penetration by tire debris. AC 25.963-1 specifically notes, “The access covers, however, need not be more impact resistant than the contiguous tank structure,” highlighting the assumption that wing basic structures meet some higher standard. However, in another event in 2000, on the Concorde airplane, an unanticipated failure mode occurred when tire debris impacted the fuel tank. The initial impact of the tire debris did not penetrate the fuel tank, but a pressure wave caused by the tire impact caused the fuel tank to rupture. Regulatory authorities subsequently required modifications to Concorde airplanes to add a means to retain fuel if the primary fuel retention means was damaged. In order to maintain the level of safety envisioned by § 25.963(e), these special conditions establish a standard for resistance to potential tire debris impacts to the contiguous wing surfaces and require consideration of possible secondary effects of a tire impact, such as the induced pressure wave that was a factor in the Concorde accident. It takes into account that new construction methods and materials may not necessarily provide the resistance to debris impact that has historically been shown as adequate. These special conditions are based on the defined tire impact areas and tire fragment characteristics described in AC 25.963-1. In addition, despite practical design considerations, some uncommon debris larger than that defined in paragraph
(b)may cause a fuel leak within the defined area, so paragraph
(c)of these special conditions also takes into consideration possible leakage paths. Fuel tank surfaces of typical transport airplanes have thick aluminum construction in the tire debris impact areas that is tolerant to tire debris larger than that defined in paragraph
(b)of these special conditions. Consideration of leaks caused by larger tire fragments is needed to ensure that an adequate level of safety is provided. Note: While § 25.963 includes consideration of uncontained engine debris, the effects of engine debris are not included in these special conditions because this hazard will be addressed on the 787 under the existing requirements of § 25.903(d). Section 25.903(d) requires minimizing the hazards from uncontained engine debris. Discussion of Comments Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-07-04-SC for the 787 was published in the **Federal Register** on June 11, 2007 (72 FR 32023). One comment was received from Airbus. Airbus referred to the discussion of the Concorde airplane, in which we said, “The skin on the unique delta wing design of this supersonic airplane is made of titanium, with a thickness much less than that of the skin on a conventional subsonic airplane.” Airbus informed us that the wing skin of the Concorde is made of aluminum rather than titanium. We thank the commenter for that information. The difference in material on the Concorde does not affect these special conditions, however, and the commenter did not request a change. These special conditions are adopted as proposed. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the 787. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the 787. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. Debris Impacts to Fuel Tanks
(a)Impacts by tire debris to any fuel tank or fuel system component located within 30 degrees to either side of wheel rotational planes may not result in penetration or otherwise induce fuel tank deformation, rupture (for example, through propagation of pressure waves), or cracking sufficient to allow a hazardous fuel leak. A hazardous fuel leak results if debris impact to a fuel tank surface causes— 1. A running leak, 2. A dripping leak, or 3. A leak that, 15 minutes after wiping dry, results in a wetted airplane surface exceeding 6 inches in length or diameter. The leak must be evaluated under maximum fuel head pressure.
(b)Compliance with paragraph
(a)must be shown by analysis or tests assuming all of the following. 1. The tire debris fragment size is 1 percent of the tire mass. 2. The tire debris fragment is propelled at a tangential speed that could be attained by a tire tread at the airplane flight manual airplane rotational speed (V R at maximum gross weight). 3. The tire debris fragment load is distributed over an area on the fuel tank surface equal to 1 1/2 percent of the total tire tread area.
(c)Fuel leaks caused by impact from tire debris larger than that specified in paragraph (b), from any portion of a fuel tank located within the tire debris impact area, may not result in hazardous quantities of fuel entering any of the following areas of the airplane. 1. Engine inlet, 2. APU inlet, or 3. Cabin air inlet. This must be shown by test or analysis, or a combination of both, for each approved engine forward thrust condition and each approved reverse thrust condition. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 14, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18931 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM368 Special Conditions No. 25-362-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Crashworthiness AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions. SUMMARY: The FAA issues these special conditions for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These novel or unusual design features are associated with carbon fiber reinforced plastic used in the construction of the fuselage. For these design features, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for impact response characteristics to ensure survivable crashworthiness. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing standards. We will issue additional special conditions for other novel or unusual design features of the Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 26, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Won, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2145; facsimile
(425)227-1320. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied for an FAA type certificate for its new Boeing Model 787-8 passenger airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with a two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 476,000 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 381 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)21.17, Boeing must show that Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes (hereafter referred to as “the 787”) meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117, except §§ 25.809(a) and 25.812, which will remain at Amendment 25-115. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 787 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must also issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The 787 airplane will incorporate several novel or unusual design features. Because of rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions for the 787 contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. The 787 fuselage will be fabricated with carbon fiber reinforced plastic
(CFRP)semi-monocoque construction, consisting of skins with co-cured longitudinal stringers and mechanically fastened circumferential frames. This is a novel and unusual design feature for a large transport category airplane certificated under 14 CFR part 25. Structure fabricated from CFRP may behave differently than metallic structure because of differences in material ductility, stiffness, failure modes, and energy absorption characteristics. Therefore, Boeing must evaluate impact response characteristics of the 787 to ensure that its survivable crashworthiness characteristics provide approximately the same level of safety as those of a similarly sized airplane fabricated from traditionally used metallic materials. The FAA and industry have been working together for many years to understand how to improve transport airplane occupant safety for what are considered survivable accidents. This work has involved examining airplane accidents, conducting tests to simulate crash conditions, and performing analytical modeling of a range of crash conditions, all with the purpose of providing further insight into factors that can influence occupant safety. Results of this continuing effort have enabled specific changes to regulatory standards and design practices to improve occupant safety. This evolution is reflected in changes to the part 25 Emergency Landing Conditions regulations. For example, airplane emergency load factors in § 25.561, General, have been increased. We have added passenger seat dynamic load conditions in § 25.562, Emergency Landing Dynamic Conditions. The seat dynamic conditions were added to the regulations based on FAA and industry tests and a review of accidents. These seat dynamic conditions reflect the environment for passengers and the airframe during a crash event. They are based on data gathered from accidents of previously certificated airplanes given conditions that were survivable. Tests of previously certificated airplanes showed that performance of the airframe was acceptable in a survivable crash event. We continually update our requirements as such new information becomes available. In the context of this evolution of the regulations, there is at present no specific dynamic regulatory requirement for airplane-level crashworthiness. However, the FAA reviews the design of each new airplane model to determine if it incorporates novel or unusual design features that may have a significant influence on the crash dynamics of the airframe. The Administrator prescribes special conditions for the airplane model if the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of the novel or unusual design feature. Because of the novel design features of the 787, Boeing must conduct an assessment to ensure that the 787 will not have dynamic characteristics that differ significantly from those found in previously certificated designs. The nature of this design assessment is largely dependent on the similarities and differences between the new type design and previously certificated airplanes. Such an assessment ensures that the level of safety of the new type design is commensurate with that implicitly assumed in the existing regulations, and achieved by airplane designs previously certificated. If significant trends in industry warrant change to the existing regulations, the FAA may use its rulemaking process in collaboration with industry to develop an appropriate dynamic regulatory requirement for airplane level crashworthiness. The FAA and industry have collected a significant amount of experimental data as well as data from crashes of transport category airplanes that shows a high occupant survival rate at vertical descent velocities up to 30 ft/sec. Most of this data was collected on narrow-body (single aisle) transport category airplanes. Based on this information, the FAA finds it appropriate and necessary for an assessment of the 787 to span a range of airplane vertical descent speeds up to 30 ft/sec. The FAA is imposing these special conditions to maintain the level of safety envisioned in the existing airworthiness standards under foreseeable survivable impact events. Discussion of Final Special Conditions To provide the same level of safety as exists with conventional airplane construction, Boeing must show that the 787 has sufficient crashworthiness capabilities under foreseeable survivable impact events. To show this, Boeing will have to evaluate the impact response characteristics of the 787 to ensure that its crashworthiness characteristics are not significantly different from those of a similarly sized airplane built from traditionally used metals. If the evaluation shows that the 787 impact response characteristics are significantly different, Boeing will have to make design changes to bring the different impact response characteristics in line with those of a similarly sized metal construction airplane, or incorporate mitigating design features. Factors in crash survivability are retention of items of mass, maintenance of occupant emergency egress paths, maintenance of acceptable acceleration and loads experienced by the occupants, and maintenance of a survivable volume. The FAA has reviewed available data from accidents, tests simulating crash conditions, and analytical modeling of a range of crash conditions. From this information we have concluded that airplane performance should be evaluated over a range of airplane level vertical impact speeds up to 30 ft/sec. If the 787 impact characteristics differ significantly from those of a previously certificated wide body transport, this will result in a need to meet load factors higher than those defined in 14 CFR 25.561. The higher load factors will be necessary in order to maintain the same level of safety for the occupants, in terms of retention of items of mass. In the case of acceleration and loads experienced by the occupants, means would have to be incorporated to reduce load levels experienced by those occupants to the injury criteria levels of § 25.562, or load levels of a previously certificated comparable airplane, in order to maintain the same level of safety for the occupants. Discussion of Comments Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-07-05-SC for the 787 was published in the **Federal Register** on June 11, 2007 (72 FR 32021). Several comments were received from two commenters. *First Commenter:* The commenter, a member of the public, provided suggestions and comments related to the subject of crash simulation structural analysis as it pertains to the applicant's demonstration of compliance to these special conditions. This commenter agreed with the intent of the special conditions. However, he suggested that they be expanded or new special conditions developed to require a full fuselage fuel fed fire test to address possible fire, smoke, and toxicity
(FST)hazards that may be associated with use of carbon fiber epoxy structure on the 787. The commenter recommended that the special conditions include a requirement for a full scale drop test with a forward velocity vector to simulate a condition representative of a wheels-up landing, with the resultant vector sum of the vertical and longitudinal velocity components being included to assess the loads on the passengers and crew. *FAA Response:* We agree that fuselage post-crash fire survivability of the 787, including FST hazards that may be associated with use of carbon fiber epoxy structure, is an important issue. This issue is outside the scope of these special conditions, however. It is being addressed in conjunction with the requirements for § 25.856(b) relating to fuselage fire penetration protection. The FAA considered longitudinal loading conditions as well as combined longitudinal and vertical loading conditions of the 787 airframe under survivable crash conditions and emergency landing conditions with various landing gear configurations (wheels up configurations). The factors (principally deformation, mass, and friction) that govern impact response characteristics in the longitudinal direction are not significantly altered with the change from metallic to composite fuselage structure. Given the similarity of the 787 to the current fleet with respect to these conditions, the FAA has determined that these special conditions will be limited to an assessment of the 787 for the vertical impact direction. With respect to the commenter's suggestions on the specific method of compliance, the FAA does not mandate a specific method of compliance for the requirements specified. The applicant is responsible for demonstrating compliance with these special conditions. *Second Commenter:* This commenter, also a member of the public, suggested that the FAA conduct the crash impact testing necessary to show that the 787 meets these special conditions. He suggested that requirements for demonstrating compliance with the crashworthiness special conditions should consist of a drop test of a fuselage section of the 787 from a height of 14 feet onto concrete with an impact velocity of approximately 30 feet per second. The commenter suggested that the criteria of these special conditions should be that the 787 demonstrate the same level of vertical impact shock-absorption capability as demonstrated by an FAA-sponsored drop test of a Boeing 737 fuselage section conducted in 2000. This commenter also suggested that the special conditions be expanded to address post-crash fire survivability of the 787 in the post-impact damaged state. He provided suggestions and comments related to means of compliance to these special conditions, and also some comments on issues outside the scope of these special conditions. *FAA Response:* The Administrator prescribes special conditions necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. The requirements of these special conditions were prescribed to ensure that the 787 provides an equivalent level of occupant safety and survivability under foreseeable survivable impact events to that provided by previously certificated wide-body transports of similar size. These special conditions do not mandate a specific method of compliance for the requirements specified. The applicant is responsible for demonstrating compliance with these special conditions. The FAA's role is to verify that the special conditions have been complied with, rather than to develop a method for compliance. While there are merits in conducting a full-scale test, there are other approaches using tests and analysis that can actually yield more data than would a single test. Thus, we consider it more effective to establish the standards and encourage the applicant to develop the most effective method of compliance. The FAA agrees that fuselage post-crash fire survivability of the 787, including FST hazards that may be associated with use of carbon fiber epoxy structure, is an important issue. This issue is outside the scope of these special conditions, however. It is being addressed in conjunction with the requirements for § 25.856(b) relating to fuselage fire penetration protection. These special conditions are adopted as proposed. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the 787. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the 787. It is not a rule of general applicability. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8 must provide an equivalent level of occupant safety and survivability to that provided by previously certificated wide-body transports of similar size under foreseeable survivable impact events for the following four criteria. In order to demonstrate an equivalent level of occupant safety and survivability, the applicant must demonstrate that the Model 787-8 meets the following criteria for a range of airplane vertical descent velocities up to 30 ft/sec. 1. Retention of items of mass. The occupants, i.e., passengers, flight attendants, and flightcrew, must be protected during the impact event from release of seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass due to the impact loads and resultant structural deformation of the supporting airframe and floor structures. The applicant must show that loads due to the impact event and resultant structural deformation of the supporting airframe and floor structure at the interface of the airplane structure to seats, overhead bins, and other items of mass are comparable to those of previously certificated wide-body transports of similar size for the range of descent velocities stated above. The attachments of these items need not be designed for static emergency landing loads in excess of those defined in § 25.561 if impact response characteristics of the Boeing Model 787-8 yield load factors at the attach points that are comparable to those for a previously certificated wide-body transport category airplane. 2. Maintenance of acceptable acceleration and loads experienced by the occupants. The applicant must show that the impact response characteristics of the Boeing Model 787-8, specifically the vertical acceleration levels experienced at the seat/floor interface and loads experienced by the occupants during the impact events, are consistent with those found in § 25.562(b) or with levels expected for a previously certificated wide-body transport category airplane for the conditions stated above. 3. Maintenance of a survivable volume. For the conditions stated above, the applicant must show that all areas of the airplane occupied for takeoff and landing provide a survivable volume comparable to that of previously certificated wide-body transports of similar size during and after the impact event. This means that structural deformation will not result in infringement of the occupants' normal living space so that passenger survivability will not be significantly affected. 4. Maintenance of occupant emergency egress paths. The evacuation of occupants must be comparable to that from a previously certificated wide-body transport of similar size. To show this, the applicant must show that the suitability of the egress paths, as determined following the vertical impact events, is comparable to the suitability of the egress paths of a comparable, certificated wide-body transport, as determined following the same vertical impact events. Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 14, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18942 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28349; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-025-AD; Amendment 39-15211; AD 2007-20-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SP Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD requires reconfiguring the clamps of certain wire bundles and applying insulating sealant to certain fasteners inside the fuel tanks. This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing inside the fuel tanks in the event of a lightning strike or high-powered short circuit, which could result in a fuel tank explosion or fire. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 31, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of October 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6501; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the 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 would apply to certain Boeing Model 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SP series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 5, 2007 (72 FR 30999). That NPRM proposed to require reconfiguring the clamps of certain wire bundles and applying insulating sealant to certain fasteners inside the fuel tanks. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the single comment received. Request To Add Information About New Clamp Design Boeing requests that we add information about the design of the replacement clamps. Boeing asserts that the second paragraph of the Relevant Service Information section of the NPRM does not describe how the new clamps protect the wire bundle. Boeing explains that the new clamps are of a different design and have additional protection on their edges. Boeing therefore requests that we revise the described paragraph to read “* * * installing new, larger clamps, which contain additional protection against metal to bundle contact, * * *.” We partially agree with this request. We agree that this information clarifies the nature of the modification developed to address the unsafe condition; however, the Relevant Service Information section of the NPRM is not retained in the final rule. Therefore, we find that no change to the AD is necessary in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 707 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 107 airplanes of U.S. registry. Depending on airplane configuration, the required actions take between 106 and 448 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost between $430 and $2,074 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is between $8,910 and $37,914 per airplane, or up to $4,056,798 for all airplanes. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-20-01 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15211. Docket No. FAA-2007-28349; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-025-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective October 31, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2327, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2006; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2326, dated January 4, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing inside the fuel tanks in the event of a lightning strike or high-powered short circuit, which could result in a fuel tank explosion or fire. 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. Change and Seal
(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
(1)Reconfigure the wire bundle clamps and seal the ends of certain fasteners inside the auxiliary fuel tank, main fuel tanks, and surge fuel tanks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2327, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2006.
(2)Seal the ends of certain fasteners inside the main fuel tanks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2326, dated January 4, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2327, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2006; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2326, dated January 4, 2007; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, 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 September 17, 2007. John Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 7 [FR Doc. E7-18747 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28619; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-004-AD; Amendment 39-15212; AD 2007-20-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Model DHC-7 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Viking Air Limited Model DHC-7 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection of certain SM-200 servo drive units (power servo motor and housing assemblies) for certain markings, related investigative action if necessary, and modification if necessary. This AD results from a report that some SM-200 servo drive units that were not in configuration MOD H are installed on Model DHC-7 airplanes. MOD H prevents the internal clutch fasteners from backing out. We are issuing this AD to prevent the possibility of internal clutch fasteners from backing out, which could cause an inadvertent servo engagement and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 31, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Contact Viking Air Limited, 9574 Hampden Road, Sidney, British Columbia V8L 5V5, Canada, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ezra Sasson, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7320; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the 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 would apply to all Viking Air Limited Model DHC-7 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36925). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection of certain SM-200 servo drive units (power servo motor and housing assemblies) for certain markings, related investigative action if necessary, and modification if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection 1 $80 $80 21 $1,680 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-20-02 Viking Air Limited (Formerly Bombardier, Inc.):** Amendment 39-15212. Docket No. FAA-2007-28619; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-004-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective October 31, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Viking Air Limited Model DHC-7-1, DHC-7-100, DHC-7-101, DHC-7-102, and DHC-7-103 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that some SM-200 servo drive units (power servo motor and housing assemblies) that were not in configuration MOD H are installed on Model DHC-7 airplanes. MOD H prevents the possibility of internal clutch fasteners from backing out. We are issuing this AD to prevent the internal clutch fasteners from backing out, which could cause an inadvertent servo engagement and consequent 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. Inspection and Modification
(f)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the SM-200 power servo motor and housing assembly, part numbers 4006719-904, -913 and -933, to determine if MOD H is marked, and before further flight, do all applicable related investigative action and modifications of the power servo motor and housing assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Viking Alert Service Bulletin 7-22-20, dated May 29, 2006. Note 1: The alert service bulletin refers to Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 4006719-22-A0016 (Pub. No. A21-1146-008), Revision 001, dated November 1, 2004, as an additional source of service information for doing the inspection, related investigative action, and modifications. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(h)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-18, dated July 17, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Viking Alert Service Bulletin 7-22-20, dated May 29, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Viking Air Limited, 9574 Hampden Road, Sidney, British Columbia V8L 5V5, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 19, 2007. John Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18863 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28599; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-008-AD; Amendment 39-15213; AD 2007-20-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series 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)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The aim of this AD, is to mandate airworthiness requirements in structural maintenance in accordance with the requirements defined in the AIRBUS A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Items
(ALI)document issue 11, referenced AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, approved by EASA on 31 May 2006. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 31, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 9, 2007 (72 FR 37122). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The aim of this AD, is to mandate airworthiness requirements in structural maintenance in accordance with the requirements defined in the AIRBUS A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Items
(ALI)document issue 11, referenced AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, approved by EASA on 31 May 2006. Issue 11 of this document (refer to the Summary of Changes chapter for more details) deals in particular with the introduction of new tasks and the reduction of threshold and interval of some ALI tasks. Some other clarifications are also brought to some tasks like for example the access, the applicability period or the applicability. This AD supersedes DGAC AD F-2004-153, as it was mandating A300-600 ALI issue 9. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Incorporating this revision into the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is intended to ensure the continued structural integrity of these airplanes. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects about 138 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $11,040, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this 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 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 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 Operations office 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 Operations 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: **2007-20-03 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15213. Docket No. FAA-2007-28599; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-008-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective October 31, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes, all certified models, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Time Limits/Maintenance Checks. Reason
(e)The mandatory continued airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: The aim of this AD, is to mandate airworthiness requirements in structural maintenance in accordance with the requirements defined in the AIRBUS A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Items
(ALI)document issue 11, referenced AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, approved by EASA on 31 May 2006. Issue 11 of this document (refer to the Summary of Changes chapter for more details) deals in particular with the introduction of new tasks and the reduction of threshold and interval of some ALI tasks. Some other clarifications are also brought to some tasks like for example the access, the applicability period or the applicability. This AD supersedes DGAC AD F-2004-153, as it was mandating A300-600 ALI issue 9. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Incorporating this revision into the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is intended to ensure the continued structural integrity of these airplanes. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated April 2006. The tolerance (grace period) for compliance (specified in paragraph 2 of Section B—Program Rules) with Issue 11 of the ALI is within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, provided that none of the following is exceeded:
(1)Thresholds or intervals in the operator's current approved maintenance schedule that are taken from a previous ALI issue, if existing, and are higher than or equal to those given in Issue 11 of the ALI.
(2)8 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3)50 percent of the intervals given in Issue 11 of the ALI.
(4)Any application tolerance given in the task description of Issue 11 of the ALI. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98056-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0374, dated December 15, 2006, and Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Items Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated April 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Items Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated April 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (Page 143-G of this document is missing the document number, document issue date and revision level, section identifier, and page number.)
(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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(3)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 September 19, 2007. John Piccola, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-18870 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 12 [CBP Dec. 07-79; USCBP-2007-0074] RIN 1505-AB87 Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Material From Guatemala AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)regulations to reflect the extension of import restrictions on certain archaeological material from Guatemala which were imposed by Treasury Decision (T.D.) 97-81 and extended by T.D. 02-56. The Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, has determined that conditions continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions. Accordingly, the restrictions will remain in effect for an additional 5 years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to indicate this second extension. These restrictions are being extended pursuant to determinations of the United States Department of State made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act in accordance with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. T.D. 97-81 contains the Designated List of archaeological material that describes the articles to which the restrictions apply. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 29, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For legal aspects, George F. McCray, Esq., Chief, Intellectual Property Rights and Restricted Merchandise Branch,
(202)572-8710. For operational aspects, Michael Craig, Chief, Other Government Agencies Branch,
(202)863-6558. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Pursuant to the provisions of the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention, codified into U.S. law as the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 *et seq.* ), the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with Guatemala on September 29, 1997, concerning the imposition of import restrictions on archaeological objects and materials from the pre-Columbian cultures of Guatemala. On October 3, 1997, the former United States Customs Service published T.D. 97-81 in the **Federal Register** (62 FR 51771), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of these restrictions, and included a list designating the types of archaeological objects and materials covered by the restrictions. The restrictions cover Maya material from the Peten Lowlands and related pre-Columbian material from the Highlands and the Southern Coast of Guatemala. Prior to the issuance of T.D. 97-81, on April 15, 1991, the former United States Customs Service published T.D. 91-34 in the **Federal Register** (56 FR 15181), which imposed emergency import restrictions on certain archaeological material from the Peten Region of Guatemala. Under T.D. 91-34, § 12.104g(b) (19 CFR 12.104g(b)) of the regulations pertaining to emergency restrictions was amended accordingly. These emergency restrictions were extended for a period of three years on November 7, 1994, under T.D. 94-84 (59 FR 55528). Subsequently, the same archaeological material covered by T.D. 91-34 (and the extension of T.D. 94-84) was subsumed in T.D. 97-81 when it was published in 1997, at which time the emergency restrictions of T.D. 91-34 (and T.D. 94-84) were removed from § 12.104g(b). Import restrictions listed in 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are “effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period can be extended for additional periods not to exceed five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists” (19 CFR 12.104g(a)). On September 30, 2002, the former United States Customs Service published T.D. 02-56 in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 61259), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of these import restrictions for an additional period of five years until September 29, 2007. After reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, and in response to a request by the Government of Guatemala, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, concluding that the cultural heritage of Guatemala continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of archaeological materials, made the necessary determination to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years on July 18, 2007, and diplomatic notes have been exchanged, reflecting the extension of the restrictions. Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of the import restrictions. The Designated List of Archaeological Material from Guatemala covered by these import restrictions is set forth in T.D. 97-81. The Designated List and accompanying image database may also be found at the following internet Web site address: *http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/gtimage.html* . The restrictions on the importation of these archaeological materials from Guatemala are to continue in effect for an additional 5 years. Importation of such material continues to be restricted unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met. Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. Executive Order 12866 Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, it is not subject to Executive Order 12866. Signing Authority This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1). List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12 Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise. Amendment to CBP Regulations For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below: PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 1. The general authority citation for part 12 and the specific authority citation for § 12.104g continue to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624; Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612; 2. In § 12.104g(a), the table of the list of agreements imposing import restrictions on described articles of cultural property of State Parties is amended in the entry for Guatemala by removing the reference to “T.D. 02-56” and adding in its place “CBP Dec. 07-79” in the column headed “Decision No.”. W. Ralph Basham, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: September 21, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. 07-4748 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- General powers§ 1506
- Capitalization of System institutions§ 2154a
- Definitions§ 601
- Dissolution; voluntary or involuntary liquidation; mergers; receiverships or conservators§ 2183
- Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation§ 2160
- Power to borrow; issuance of notes, bonds, debentures, and other obligations§ 2153
- Liability of banks; United States not liable§ 2155
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Definitions§ 2601
- Import restrictions§ 2606
- Rule making§ 553
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- Rules and forms prescribed by Secretary§ 66
- Regulations§ 2612
CFR
- Definitions.§ 615.5201
- Special conditions.§ 21.16
- What is a special condition?§ 11.19
- General.§ 25.561
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Definitions.§ 12.104
- Customs revenue function regulations issued under the authority of the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security.§ 0.1
15 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 457
- 7 CFR 3015
- 7 CFR 11
- 12 CFR 627
- 12 CFR 615.5301(b)(1)(iv)
- 5 USC 551-59
- 14 CFR 25
- 14 CFR 34
- 14 CFR 36
- Pub. L. 92-574
- 14 CFR 121
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 19 CFR 12
- Pub. L. 97-446
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Cite7 CFR 457
Cite7 CFR 3015
Cite7 CFR 11
Cites 42 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources