Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

28,204 words·~128 min read·/register/2007/10/25/07-5273

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AI23 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100 Revision 4 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage cask regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec) HI-STORM 100 cask system listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 4 to Certificate of Compliance

(CoC)Number 1014. Amendment No. 4 would modify the CoC by including changes to add site-specific options to the CoC to permit use of a modified HI-STORM 100 cask system at the Indian Point Unit 1

(IP1)Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). These options include the shortening of the HI-STORM 100S Version B, Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC)-32 and MPC-32F and the HI-TRAC 100D Canister to accommodate site-specific restrictions. Additional changes address the Technical Specification

(TS)definition of transport operations and associated language in the safety analysis report (SAR); the soluble boron requirements for Array/Class 14x14E IP1 fuel; the helium gas backfill requirements for Array/Class 14x14E IP1 fuel; the addition of a fifth damaged fuel container design under the TS definition for damaged fuel container; addition of separate burnup, cooling time, and decay heat limits for Array/Class 14x14 IP1 fuel for loading in an MPC-32 and MPC-32F; addition of antimony-beryllium secondary sources as approved contents; the loading of all IP1 fuel assemblies in damaged fuel containers; the preclusion of loading of IP1 fuel debris in the MPC-32 or MPC-32F; the reduction of the maximum enrichment for Array/Class 14x14E IP1 fuel from 5.0 to 4.5 weight percent uranium-235; changes to licensing drawings to differentiate the IP1 MPC-32 and MPC-32F from the previously approved MPC-32 and MPC-32F; and other editorial changes, including replacing all references to U.S. Tool and Die with Holtec Manufacturing Division. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AI23) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. *Mail comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at

(301)415-1966. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays [telephone

(301)415-1966]. *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . An electronic copy of the proposed CoC No. 1014, the proposed Technical Specifications (TS), and the preliminary safety evaluation report

(SER)for Amendment No. 4 can be found in a package under ADAMS Accession No. ML072220481. The proposed CoC No. 1014, the proposed TS, the preliminary SER for Amendment No. 4, and the environmental assessment, are available for inspection at the NRC PDR, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of these documents may be obtained from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone

(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone

(301)415-6219, e-mail *jmm2@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional supplementary information, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1014 and does not include other aspects of the HI-STORM 100 design. Because NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently as a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on January 8, 2008. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on the direct final rule by November 26, 2007, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to the proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1)The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a)The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b)The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c)The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2)The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3)The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TS. For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended; sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242; as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951, as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241; sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1014 is revised to read as follows: § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. Certificate Number: 1014. Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 31, 2000. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: July 15, 2002. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: June 7, 2005. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 29, 2007. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: January 8, 2008. SAR Submitted by: Holtec International. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System. Docket Number: 72-1014. Certificate Expiration Date: June 1, 2020. Model Number: HI-STORM 100. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. William F. Kane, Acting Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-21015 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0081; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-186-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: A number of occurrences of an incorrect installation of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator

(THSA)have been found and reported during the accomplishment of the AIRBUS Service Bulletin

(SB)A320-27-1164 mandated by EASA AD 2006-0223. These issues could lead to a degradation of the integrity of the THSA primary load path and to secondary load path partial or full engagement. Degradation of the THSA primary load path could result in latent (undetected) loading and eventual failure of the THSA secondary load path, with consequent uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(THSA)have been found and reported during the accomplishment of the AIRBUS Service Bulletin

(SB)A320-27-1164 mandated by EASA AD 2006-0223. These issues could lead to a degradation of the integrity of the THSA primary load path and to secondary load path partial or full engagement. This AD therefore mandates a one-time detailed visual inspection of specific parts of the THSA attachments. Degradation of the THSA primary load path could result in latent (undetected) loading and eventual failure of the THSA secondary load path, with consequent uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane. The corrective actions include doing a one-time detailed visual inspection of the lower and the upper THSA attachments for correct installation and the presence of metallic particles, contacting Airbus for repair instructions if any installation deviations or metallic particles are found, and doing repairs. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated January 12, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 721 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $173,040, or $240 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **AIRBUS:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0081; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-186-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by November 26, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models, all manufactured serial numbers

(MSN)up to and including MSN 2860. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: A number of occurrences of an incorrect installation of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator

(THSA)have been found and reported during the accomplishment of the AIRBUS Service Bulletin

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

(1)Within 600 flight hours or 750 flight cycles or 100 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the lower and the upper THSA attachments for installation deviations and metallic particles, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated January 12, 2007; and, if any installation deviations or metallic particles are found, before further flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and repair. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No Difference. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0178, dated June 22, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated January 12, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 12, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21006 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27785; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-267-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 Airplanes and Model ERJ 190 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products listed above. This action revises the earlier NPRM by expanding the scope. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(FGCS)are not displayed on aircraft equipped with [certain] EPIC software load[s] * * *. Therefore, following a possible failure on one FGCS channel during a given flight, such a failure condition will remain undetected * * *. If another failure occurs on the second FGCS channel, the result may be a command hardover by the autopilot. A command hardover is a sudden roll, pitch, or yaw movement, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(ATA)on behalf of its member US Airways, have requested that an optional method of compliance be added to the AD. EMBRAER states that PRIMUS EPIC Field-Loadable Software Version 19.3 is available and that instructions for uploading this new software are described in Service Bulletins 170-31-0019 and 190-31-0009, both issued on May 4, 2007. EMBRAER continues that, as soon as this upload is accomplished, the repetitive inspections described by service bulletins 170-22-0003 and 190-22-0002 (cited in the original NPRM as appropriate sources of service information) are no longer needed. Consequently EMBRAER suggests that we revise the NPRM to include an optional installation of software version 19.3 in lieu of the repetitive inspections. US Airways states that Embraer Service Bulletin 190-22-0002, dated November 9, 2006, mandates testing of the FGCS channel engagement until MAU PRIMUS EPIC software LOAD version 19.1 has been installed. US Airways therefore requests that upload of PRIMUS EPIC Software Version 19.1 or higher be added to the final rule as an option to the compliance requirements already stated in the NPRM. We partially agree with this request. We have determined that software LOAD version 19.1 will not address the unsafe condition described in the supplemental NPRM. However, we have confirmed with Embraer that software LOAD version 19.3 or higher is acceptable as an optional terminating action for the repetitive functional checks. We have therefore revised paragraph

(f)into paragraph (f)(1) and paragraph (f)(2) in the supplemental NPRM to provide for the optional terminating action. Request to Clarify Procedures One commenter, Ranamdeep Singh, asks that we clarify or remove the following statement from paragraph

(f)of the NPRM: “Before further flight, do all applicable replacements of the actuator input-output processor in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.” The commenter states that the MCAI specifies a functional check within 300 hours after the effective date of the MCAI, with repetitions every 600 hours thereafter, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-22-0002, dated November 9, 2006, but does not require replacing the actuator input-output processor before further flight. The commenter continues that Service Bulletin 190-22-0002 provides an alternative procedure to perform the functional check with the airplane in flight rather than on the ground. The commenter states an intent to use this alternative method due to a lack of ground equipment, but asserts that the words “before further flight” in paragraph

(f)of the NPRM mean that the alternative method can not be used, which, therefore, causes an excessive burden by forcing operators to perform the functional check on the ground. The commenter therefore requests that we clarify or remove the specified statement. We partially agree with this request. It appears there is some confusion regarding the procedures described in Service Bulletin 190-22-0002. The original NPRM requires replacing the actuator input-output processor before further flight after it has been determined that replacement is applicable. The functional checks described in the service bulletin, in paragraph 3.A.2 of the ground check and paragraphs 3.B.6(a) and

(b)of the alternative check, all specify replacing the actuator input-output processor if certain messages are displayed during the functional check. The operator may use the alternative method and perform the functional check in flight, but after the check has been done, any defective actuator input-output processor must be replaced before further flight after the airplane has landed. It is not necessary to change the supplemental NPRM in this regard. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 98 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $15,680, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE AERONAUTICA S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27785; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-267-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by November 19, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes, and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes; certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 22: Auto Flight. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)for Model ERJ 170 airplanes states: It has been found that some “caution” messages issued by the Flight Guidance Control System

(FGCS)are not displayed on aircraft equipped with EPIC software load 17.3 or 17.5. Therefore, following a possible failure on one FGCS channel during a given flight, such a failure condition will remain undetected or latent in subsequent flights. If another failure occurs on the second FGCS channel, the result may be a command hardover by the autopilot. The MCAI for Model ERJ 190 airplanes states: It has been found that some “caution” messages issued by the Flight Guidance Control System

(FGCS)are not displayed on aircraft equipped with EPIC software load 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5. Therefore, following a possible failure on one FGCS channel during a given flight, such a failure condition will remain undetected or latent in subsequent flights. If another failure occurs on the second FGCS channel, the result may be a command hardover by the autopilot. A command hardover is a sudden roll, pitch, or yaw movement, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The MCAI mandates a functional test of the flight guidance control system channels engagement. The corrective action is replacement of the actuator input-output processor if necessary. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)Within 300 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a functional check of the flight guidance control system

(FGCS)channels engagement, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-22-0003 or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-22-0002, both dated November 9, 2006, as applicable. Repeat the functional check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours, until the optional terminating action described by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD had been done. If any malfunction of the FGCS is discovered during any functional check required by this paragraph, before further flight, do all applicable replacements of the actuator input-output processor in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Note 1: For the purpose of this AD, a functional check is: “A quantitative check to determine if one or more functions of an item perform within specified limits.”

(2)Installing PRIMUS EPIC Field-Loadable Software Version 19.3, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0019, Revision 01, dated June 25, 2007; or Service Bulletin 190-31-0009, Revision 02, dated June 29, 2007, as applicable, ends the repetitive functional checks required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. If any software versions higher than 19.3 are available, the latest of any such versions is acceptable for the installation described in this paragraph. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: We have provided optional terminating action in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD; this difference has been coordinated with the Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC). 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, Attn: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2006-11-02 and 2006-11-03, both effective November 16, 2006; EMBRAER Service Bulletins 170-22-0003 and 190-22-0002, both dated November 9, 2006; EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0019, Revision 01, dated June 25, 2007; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 190-31-0009, Revision 02, dated June 29, 2007; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21008 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0083; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-266-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found the occurrence of engine anti-ice system valve failure, where the valve spring seat has broken and obstructed the anti-ice system venturi tube. * * * Therefore, should the aircraft encounter icing conditions, ice may accrete in the engine inlet lip and be ingested through the air inlet, resulting in possible engine damage and flame-out. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0083; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-266-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-09-03R1, effective January 4, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found the occurrence of engine anti-ice system valve failure, where the valve spring seat has broken and obstructed the anti-ice system venturi tube. Aircraft dispatch with that failure may be allowed by the operator Minimum Equipment List (MEL), since the engine anti-ice system valve be locked in the OPEN position. However, there is no readily available means to make sure the anti-ice system tubing is free of debris, allowing unrestricted hot airflow to the piccolo tube on the engine inlet lip. Therefore, should the aircraft encounter icing conditions, ice may accrete in the engine inlet lip and be ingested through the air inlet, resulting in possible engine damage and flame-out. The MCAI requires inspection of the engine anti-icing system valves and tubes to detect damage and, if necessary, replacement of the anti-icing system valves. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued the following service bulletins: • 145-30-0044, Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006. • 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006. • 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007. • 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 697 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $111,520, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE AERONAUTICA S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2007-0083; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-266-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by November 26, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes, certificated in any category, except aircraft having serial numbers 14500921, 14500928, 14500932, 14500949, 14500958, 14500971, 14500973 and up, which will have in-factory modification incorporated. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America Code 30: Ice and Rain Protection. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: It has been found the occurrence of engine anti-ice system valve failure, where the valve spring seat has broken and obstructed the anti-ice system venturi tube. Aircraft dispatch with that failure may be allowed by the operator Minimum Equipment List (MEL), since the engine anti-ice system valve be locked in the OPEN position. However, there is no readily available means to make sure the anti-ice system tubing is free of debris, allowing unrestricted hot airflow to the piccolo tube on the engine inlet lip. Therefore, should the aircraft encounter icing conditions, ice may accrete in the engine inlet lip and be ingested through the air inlet, resulting in possible engine damage and flame-out. The MCAI requires inspection of the engine anti-icing system valves and tubes to detect damage and, if necessary, replacement of the anti-icing system valves. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)PART I—Within the next 500 flight hours or 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, carry out a general visual inspection of both LH (left-hand) and RH (right-hand) engine anti-ice system valves to determine their P/N (part number).

(i)If any engine anti-ice system valve with P/N C146009-2 is found, no further action is required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(ii)If any anti-ice system valve with P/N C146009-3 is found, before further flight: Remove it and carry out a detailed inspection regarding its integrity; and carry out a special detailed inspection for an obstruction in the corresponding engine anti-ice system tubes; according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable.

(A)If the valve is damaged or the tube is obstructed, as shown in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable; before further flight: Replace the valve with another one bearing P/N C146009-2, C146009-3, or C146009-4; or remove the obstruction; as applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.

(B)If the valve is not damaged or the tube is not obstructed, re-install the valve or install another one bearing P/N C146009-2, C146009-3, or C146009-4; or re-install the tube; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.

(iii)If any engine anti-ice system valve with P/N C146009-4 is found, no further action is required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. In this case, paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), (f)(7), and (f)(8) of this AD are not applicable. However, paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6) of this AD must be accomplished.

(2)PART II—Within the next 1,500 flight hours or 9 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals that do not exceed 1,000 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first, carry out a detailed inspection for damage of both LH and RH engine anti-ice system valves bearing P/N C146009-2 or C146009-3; and a special detailed inspection for obstruction of the corresponding engine anti-ice system tubes; according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable; accomplishing paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)If the valve is damaged or the tube is obstructed, as shown in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable; before further flight: Replace the valve with another one bearing P/N C146009-2, C146009-3, or C146009-4; or remove the obstruction; as applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.

(ii)If the valve is not damaged, and the tube is not obstructed, before further flight: Re-install the valve or install another one bearing P/N C146009-2, C146009-3, or C146009-4; or remove the obstruction; as applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable.

(3)PART III—Any engine anti-ice system valve with P/N C146009-2 or C146009-3 that will be installed as a replacement as provided for in paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, must undergo a detailed inspection for its integrity before installation, and any damage or obstruction repaired, according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable; and additionally adhere to paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(i)If the valve is damaged, replace it by another one bearing P/N C146009-2, C146009-3, or C146009-4; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.

(ii)If the valve is not damaged installation is permitted.

(4)PART IV—Any engine anti-ice system tubes that will be installed on the aircraft as a replacement as provided for in paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, must undergo a special detailed inspection before installation, and any damage or obstruction repaired, according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable.

(5)PART V—If any engine anti-ice system valve with P/N C146009-4 has been found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do paragraphs (f)(5)(i) or (f)(5)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, within the next 1,500 flight hours or 9 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(i)If the valve was installed according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0044, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2006, Revision 02, dated September 25, 2006, or Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; as applicable; no further action is required by this AD.

(ii)If the valve was installed according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0044, Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006; 145LEG-30-0018, dated June 26, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 01, dated September 25, 2006; as applicable; carry out a special detailed inspection in the corresponding engine anti-ice system tubes, and repair any damage or remove any obstruction; according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable.

(6)PART VI—Before aircraft dispatch with one or two engine anti-ice system valves inoperative (Master Minimum Equipment List

(MMEL)30-21-01), carry out a detailed inspection for damage of the affected engine anti-ice system valves; and a special detailed inspection for obstruction of the corresponding engine anti-ice system tubes; and repair any damage or obstruction before further flight. Do all actions according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; as applicable; accomplishing paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, unless:

(i)Valves with P/N C146009-4 have been previously installed according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0044, Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, dated June 26, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 01, dated September 25, 2006; as applicable; and additionally, paragraph (f)(5)(ii) of this AD has been accomplished; or

(ii)Valves with P/N C146009-4 have been previously installed according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0044, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2006, or Revision 02, dated September 25, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; as applicable.

(7)PART VII—Within the next 2,500 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install engine anti-ice system valves bearing P/N C146009-4 in the LH and RH engine positions, replacing P/N C146009-3, according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0044, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2006, Revision 02, dated September 25, 2006, or Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; as applicable.

(8)PART VIII—Within the next 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install engine anti-ice system valves bearing P/N C146009-4 in the LH and RH engine positions, replacing P/N C146009-2, according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0044, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2006; Revision 02, dated September 25, 2006, or Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; as applicable.

(9)The installation of engine anti-ice system valves bearing P/N C146009-4 according to the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0044, Revision 01, dated June 26, 2006, Revision 02, dated September 25, 2006, or Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006; or 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; as applicable; constitutes a terminating action for this AD, in lieu of the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” 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, ANM-116, International Branch, 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; 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.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-09-03R1, effective January 4, 2007; and EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145-30-0044, Revision 03, dated December 12, 2006; 145-30-0049, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2006; 145LEG-30-0016, Revision 01, dated February 5, 2007; and 145LEG-30-0018, Revision 02, dated December 12, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 15, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21002 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0082; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-219-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 and ERJ 190 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

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

(IRU)on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1405; fax

(IRU)on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle

(FPA)indication on both Primary Flight Displays, with no alert to the flight crew. On the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190], FPA is considered as important as pitch and bank angle for piloting purposes. The unsafe condition is reduced ability of the flightcrew to control the flight path of the airplane. The corrective action is removal of certain wiring connections in the electrical connectors of both IRUs. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Embraer has issued Service Bulletins 170-34-0019 and 190-34-0009, both dated February 26, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 108 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $62 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $58,536, or $542 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE AERONAUTICA S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2007-0082; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-219-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by November 26, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 170-34-0019, dated February 26, 2007; and Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes; certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 190-34-0009, dated February 26, 2007. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 34: Navigation. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: It has been found that the implementation of the Inertial Reference Units

(IRU)on the ERJ-170 [and ERJ-190] may lead, in certain degraded modes, to an erroneous Flight Path Angle

(f)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, remove the wiring connections from pins 51 and 52 in the electrical connectors of both IRUs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 170-34-0019 or 190-34-0009, as applicable, both dated February 26, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)* : The Manager, International Branch, 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1405; 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.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

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

(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directives 2007-08-03 and 2007-08-04, both effective August 27, 2007, and to Embraer Service Bulletins 170-34-0019 and 190-34-0009, both dated February 26, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 12, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21005 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0089; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-117-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport Category Airplanes Equipped With Auxiliary Fuel Tanks Installed in Accordance With Certain Supplemental Type Certificates AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for various transport category airplanes. This proposed AD would require deactivation of Rogerson Aircraft Corporation auxiliary fuel tanks. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer, which identified potential unsafe conditions for which the manufacturer has not provided corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5254; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0089; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-117-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate

(STC)design approval) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to design approval holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Supplemental Type Certificates

(STCs)for Rogerson Auxiliary Fuel Tanks The auxiliary fuel tank STCs on affected airplanes are of two basic type designs: a box-and-bladder type, and a double-walled cylindrical type. The box-and-bladder tanks are emptied and vented into the airplane center wing tank using either pneumatic air pressure supplied from the airplane, or electrical power from the airplane to power fuel pumps installed in the tank external dry bay area. The double-walled cylindrical tanks use pneumatic air pressure to empty into the airplane center wing tank. All auxiliary tanks use some type of electrical fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), flight deck control and annunciation panels, float level switches, valves and venting systems, electrical wiring connections in the dry bay area, and electrical bonding methods. FAA's Findings During the SFAR 88 safety assessment, it was determined that the Rogerson Aircraft Corporation FQIS and float level switch did not meet intrinsically safe electrical energy levels as described in the guidelines of advisory circular

(AC)25.981-1B, Fuel Tank Ignition Source Prevention Guidelines. Rogerson identified potential ignition sources resulting from a combination of single and latent failures for the Rogerson fuel tank subsystems. To prevent high electrical energy levels from the FQIS and float level switch from entering the auxiliary fuel tank, we have determined that the appropriate solution (depending on the type of auxiliary tank) for continued use is a combination of actions. First, installing a transient suppression device

(TSD)on FQIS and float level switches would be needed. In order to maximize wire separation, the TSD must be installed as close as possible to the points where the FQIS and float level switch wires exit the TSD and enter the auxiliary tank. Other actions might include replacing high-energy FQISs, and float level switches that are impractical for TSD application, with intrinsically safe FQISs, providing wire separation, conducting a one time inspection and/or replacing aging float level switch conduit assemblies, periodically inspecting the external dry bay system components and wires, and testing the integrity of bonding resistances. Furthermore, to reduce fuel vapor ignition risks associated with dry running of fuel pumps and fuel pump failures, operational limitations are needed to ensure that the fuel pumps are turned off when the auxiliary tank is emptied. An inspection to detect fuel leakage in the dry bay and vent pipe shrouds needs to be included in the operator's maintenance program. Rogerson Aircraft Corporation has declared all STCs as high-flammability exposure installations, and has reported a few service difficulties with fuel leakage and damage to tank bladders during maintenance activities. Rogerson has not provided the service information required under SFAR 88 that would lead the FAA to make a finding of compliance; therefore, we must mandate the deactivation of all Rogerson Aircraft Corporation auxiliary fuel tanks. If operators do not wish to deactivate their auxiliary fuel tanks, we will consider requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). The most likely requests would be to allow continued use of the tanks by showing compliance with SFAR 88. This would involve obtaining STCs and developing maintenance procedures to address the safety issues identified above. Once an operator has deactivated the tank as required by this AD, the operator might wish to remove the tank. This would require a separate design approval, if an approved tank removal procedure does not exist. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require deactivation to prevent usage of auxiliary fuel tanks. Explanation of Compliance Time In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 148 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for the 39 U.S.-registered airplanes to comply with this proposed AD. Based on these figures, the estimated costs for U.S. operators could be as high as $194,400 to prepare and report the deactivation procedures, and $140,400 to deactivate the tank. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Individual cost Report 1 $80 None $80, per STC. Preparation of tank deactivation procedure 80 80 None $6,400, per STC. Physical tank deactivation 30 80 $1,200 $3,600, per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Various Transport Category Airplanes:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0089; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-117-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 10, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to airplanes, certificated in any category and equipped with auxiliary fuel tanks installed in accordance with specified Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs), as identified in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Affected Airplanes Airplanes Auxiliary tank STC Boeing Model 707 airplanes SA4053WE, SA1308NM. Boeing Model 727-100 series airplanes SA2970WE, SA3674WE, SA3157WE, SA3319WE, SA3559WE, SA2734WE, SA3920NM, SA3810WE, SA1979NM, SA1398NM, SA3483WE. Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes SA3065WE, SA1051NW. Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes SA1082NW, SA2153WE, SA1054NW. Boeing Model 737-400 and -500 series airplanes SA3992NM, SA3980NM. Boeing Model 767-200 series airplanes SA5544NM. British Aerospace Model 1-11-400 series airplanes SA1995WE, SA1626WE, SA3819WE, SA2971WE. McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15 and DC-9-15F airplanes SA3558WE, SA2587WE, SA1050NW. McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-32F (C-9B) airplanes SA3436NM, SA3495NM. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. 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. Report

(f)Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD, submit a report to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. The report must include the following information:

(1)The airplane registration and auxiliary tank STC number installed.

(2)The usage frequency in terms of total number of flights per year and total number of flights for which the auxiliary tank is used. Prevent Usage of Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

(g)On or before December 16, 2008, deactivate the auxiliary fuel tanks, in accordance with a deactivation procedure approved by the Manager of the Los Angeles ACO. Any auxiliary tank component that remains on the airplane must be secured and must have no effect on the continued operational safety and airworthiness of the airplane. Deactivation may not result in the need for additional instructions for continued airworthiness. Note 1: Appendix A of this AD provides criteria that should be included in the deactivation procedure. The proposed deactivation procedures should be submitted to the Los Angeles ACO as soon as possible to ensure timely review and approval. Note 2: For technical information, contact John Cox, Director of Engineering, Rogerson Aircraft Corporation, 16940 Von Karman, Irvine, California 92606; phone

(949)442-2381; fax

(949)442-2311. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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. Appendix A—Deactivation Criteria The auxiliary fuel tank deactivation procedure required by paragraph

(g)of this AD should address the following actions.

(1)Permanently drain auxiliary fuel tanks, and clear them of fuel vapors to eliminate the possibility of out-gassing of fuel vapors from the emptied auxiliary tank. Note: If applicable, removing the bladder might help eliminate out-gassing.

(2)Disconnect all electrical connections from the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS), fuel pumps if applicable, float switches, and all other electrical connections required for auxiliary tank operation, and stow them at the auxiliary tank interface.

(3)Disconnect all pneumatic connections if applicable, cap them at the pneumatic source, and secure them.

(4)Disconnect all fuel feed and fuel vent plumbing interfaces with airplane original equipment manufacturer

(OEM)tanks, cap them at the airplane tank side, and secure them in accordance with a method approved by the FAA; one approved method is specified in AC 25-8 Fuel Tank Flammability Minimization. In order to eliminate the possibility of structural deformation during cabin decompression, leave open and secure the disconnected auxiliary fuel tank vent lines.

(5)Pull and collar all circuit breakers used to operate the auxiliary tank.

(6)Revise the weight and balance document, if required, and obtain FAA approval.

(7)Amend the applicable sections of the applicable airplane flight manual

(AFM)to indicate that the auxiliary fuel tank is deactivated. Remove auxiliary fuel tank operating procedures to ensure that only the OEM fuel system operational procedures are contained in the AFM. Amend the Limitations Section of the AFM to indicate that the AFM Supplement for the STC is not in effect. Place a placard in the flight deck indicating that the auxiliary tank is deactivated. The AFM revisions specified in this paragraph may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

(8)Amend the applicable sections of the applicable airplane maintenance manual to remove auxiliary tank maintenance procedures.

(9)After the auxiliary fuel tank is deactivated, accomplish procedures such as leak checks and pressure checks deemed necessary before returning the airplane to service. These procedures must include verification that the airplane FQIS and fuel distribution systems have not been adversely affected.

(10)Include with the operator's proposed procedures any relevant information or additional steps that are deemed necessary by the operator to comply with the deactivation and return the airplane to service. Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 15, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21001 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0053; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-54-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-50, -80A1/A3, and -80C2A Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)for General Electric Company

(GE)CF6-50, -80A1/A3, and -80C2A series turbofan engines, installed on Airbus A300 and A310 series airplanes. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive inspections and checks of the thrust reverser actuation systems. This proposed AD would require revised inspection thresholds and intervals, and would require the same actions and additional inspections of the thrust reverser actuation system locking features. This proposed AD results from refined safety analyses performed on the thrust reverser systems by GE and Airbus. We are proposing this AD to prevent inadvertent in-flight thrust reverser deployment, which can result in loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. Contact Middle River Aircraft Systems, Mail Point 46, 103 Chesapeake Park Plaza, Baltimore, MD, 21220, attn: Warranty Support, telephone:

(410)682-0094, fax:

(410)682-0100 for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *Robert.green@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7754; fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0053; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-54-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 99-18-20, Amendment 39-11286 (64 FR 48286, September 3, 1999). That AD requires initial and repetitive inspections and checks of the thrust reverser actuation systems, and allows extended repetitive inspection intervals if an optional double p-seal configuration is installed. That AD was the result of a report of a higher than anticipated center drive unit cone brake failure rate, which reduces the overall thrust reverser system protection against inadvertent deployment. That condition, if not corrected, could result in inadvertent in-flight thrust reverser deployment, which can result in loss of control of the airplane. Actions Since AD 99-18-20 Was Issued Since AD 99-18-20 was issued, refined safety analyses performed on the thrust reverser systems installed on GE CF6-50, -80A1/A3, and -80C2A series turbofan engines were completed by GE and Airbus. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Middle River Aircraft Systems

(MRAS)Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. CF6-50 S/B 78A3001, Revision 4, dated August 30, 2007, ASB No. CF6-80A1/A3 S/B 78A1002, Revision 5, dated July 19, 2007, and ASB No. CF6-80C2A1/A2/A3/A5/A8/A5F S/B 78A1015, Revision 7, dated August 30, 2007. These ASBs describe procedures for performing initial and repetitive thrust reverser system inspections and checks. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. For that reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require revised inspection thresholds and intervals, and would require inspections of the thrust reverser actuation system locking features. The proposed AD would require that you do these actions using the relevant service information described previously. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 206 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about one work-hour per engine to perform the proposed additional inspection, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total additional cost of the proposed AD for one inspection of the U.S. fleet, to be $28,000. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Docket Number Change We are transferring the docket for this proposed AD to the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)as part of our on-going docket management consolidation efforts. The new Docket No. is FAA-2007-0053. The old Docket No. became the Directorate Identifier, which is 98-ANE-54-AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed 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. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-11286 (64 FR 48286, September 3, 1999) and by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **General Electric Company:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0053; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-54-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by December 24, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 99-18-20, Amendment 39-11286. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to General Electric Company

(GE)CF6-50, -80A1/A3, and -80C2A series turbofan engines. These engines are installed on Airbus A300 and A310 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from refined safety analyses performed on the thrust reverser systems by GE and Airbus. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent in-flight thrust reverser deployment, which can result in loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Initial Inspection for CF6-50 Series Turbofan Engines

(f)For CF6-50 series turbofan engines, perform initial thrust reverser inspections using Section 2, Accomplishment Instructions, of Middle River Aircraft Systems

(MRAS)Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)No. CF6-50 S/B 78A-3001, Revision 4, dated August 30, 2007, as follows:

(1)On Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Three Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and without thrust reverser actuation system

(TRAS)locks installed, perform the initial inspections and checks within 1,500 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after the effective date of this AD.

(2)On Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Three Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and with TRAS locks installed, perform the initial inspections and checks within 7,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.

(3)On Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Two Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and without TRAS locks installed, perform the initial inspections and checks within 1,500 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.

(4)On Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Two Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and with TRAS locks installed, perform the initial inspections and checks within 7,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD. Repetitive Inspections for CF6-50 Series Turbofan Engines

(g)For CF6-50 series turbofan engines, perform repetitive thrust reverser inspections using Section 2, Accomplishment Instructions, of MRAS ASB No. CF6-50 S/B 78A-3001, Revision 4, dated August 30, 2007, as follows:

(1)On Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Three Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and without TRAS locks installed, perform repetitive inspections and checks at the following:

(i)Within every 2,500 hours time-since-last-inspection (TSLI), perform paragraph 2.D., Translating Cowl Air Seal, Dagmar Fairing and Aft Frame Inspection; and paragraph 2.I., Fan Reverser Operational Check.

(ii)Within every 6,000 hours TSLI, perform paragraph 2.C., Pneumatic Drive Motor

(PDM)Disc Brake Holding Torque Check; paragraph 2.E., Feedback Rod to Yoke Alignment Check and Inspection of Feedback Yoke and Feedback Rod; paragraph 2.F., Translating Cowl Auto Re-Stow Function Check; and paragraph 2.I., Fan Reverser Operational Check.

(2)Within every 7,000 hours TSLI on Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Three Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and with TRAS locks installed, perform repetitive inspections and checks.

(3)On Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Two Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and without TRAS locks installed, perform repetitive inspections and checks at the following:

(i)Within every 2,500 hours TSLI, perform paragraph 2.D., Translating Cowl Air Seal, Dagmar Fairing and Aft Frame Inspection; and paragraph 2.I., Fan Reverser Operational Check.

(ii)Within every 6,000 hours TSLI, perform paragraph 2.C., Pneumatic Drive Motor

(PDM)Disc Brake Holding Torque Check; paragraph 2.E., Feedback Rod to Yoke Alignment Check and Inspection of Feedback Yoke and Feedback Rod; paragraph 2.G., Translating Cowl Auto Re-Stow Function Check; paragraph 2.H., Over Pressure Shutoff Valve (OPSOV) Indication Check; and paragraph 2.I., Fan Reverser Operational Check.

(4)On Airbus A300 series airplanes with a Two Light Reverser Indication Circuit configuration, and with TRAS locks installed, perform repetitive inspections and checks within every 7,000 hours TSLI. Initial and Repetitive Inspections for CF6-80A1/A3 Series Turbofan Engines

(h)For CF6-80A1/A3 series turbofan engines installed on Airbus A310-200 airplanes, perform initial and repetitive thrust reverser inspections using Section 2, Accomplishment Instructions, of MRAS ASB No. CF6-80A1/A3 S/B 78A-1002, Revision 5, dated July 19, 2007, at the following:

(1)For initial inspection, within 1,500 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.

(2)For repetitive inspections, within every 7,000 hours TSLI. Initial Inspection for CF6-80C2A Series Turbofan Engines

(i)For CF6-80C2A series turbofan engines, perform initial thrust reverser inspections using Section 2, Accomplishment Instructions, of MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2A1/A2/A3/A5/A8/A5F S/B 78A1015, Revision 7, dated August 30, 2007, at the following:

(1)On Airbus A300 and A310 series airplanes with left-hand and right-hand reverser halves that do not have the double/backup P-seal introduced by MRAS SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1005, and that do not have locking actuator assemblies

(LAAs)installed, within 600 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.

(2)On Airbus A300 and A310 series airplanes with left-hand and right-hand reverser halves that have the double/backup P-seal introduced by MRAS SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1005, or that have LAAs installed, within 7,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD. Directional Pilot Valve

(DPV)Pressure Switch Check on Airbus Airplanes With CF6-80C2A5F Engines Is Not Applicable

(3)The DPV pressure switch check per paragraph 2.F. is not applicable to Airbus airplanes with CF6-80C2A5F left-hand and right-hand fan reverser halves (model ES-CF6-5), because this check is performed through the full authority digital electronic control fault detection system. Repetitive Inspections for CF6-80C2A Series Turbofan Engines

(j)For CF6-80C2A series turbofan engines, perform repetitive thrust reverser inspections using Section 2, Accomplishment Instructions, of MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2A1/A2/A3/A5/A8/A5F S/B 78A1015, Revision 7, dated August 30, 2007, at the following:

(1)On Airbus A300 and A310 series airplanes with left-hand and right-hand reverser halves that do not have the double/backup P-seal, introduced by MRAS SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1005, and that do not have LAAs installed, within every 600 hours TSLI.

(2)On Airbus A300 and A310 series airplanes with left-hand and right-hand reverser halves that have the double/backup P-seal, introduced by MRAS SB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1015, or that have LAAs installed, within every 7,000 hours TSLI. Engines That Fail an Inspection or Check

(k)On engines that fail an inspection or check required by this AD, perform corrective actions or deactivate the fan reverser per Section 2, Accomplishment Instructions, of the applicable MRAS ASB, before further flight. Previous Credit

(l)Initial and repetitive inspections and checks of the thrust reverser actuation systems done before the effective date of this AD that use the following ASBs, comply with the requirements specified in this AD:

(1)MRAS ASB No. CF6-50 S/B 78A-3001, Revision 2, dated December 18, 1997; and MRAS ASB No. CF6-50 S/B 78A-3001, Revision 3, dated May 3, 2006.

(2)MRAS ASB No. CF6-80A1/A3 S/B 78A-1002, Revision 3, dated January 21, 1999; and MRAS ASB No. CF6-80A1/A3 S/B 78A-1002, Revision 4, dated May 3, 2006.

(3)MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1015, Revision 5, dated January 21, 1999; and MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2A1/A2/A3/A5/A8/A5F S/B 78A1015, Revision 6, dated May 3, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(m)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(n)France AD 1999-422- IMP(B), dated October 20, 1999, also addresses the subject of this AD.

(o)Contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *Robert.green@faa.gov;* telephone

(781)238-7754; fax

(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 18, 2007. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-21000 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29343; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-13-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)for Rolls-Royce plc

(RR)RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 series turbofan engines. That AD requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections of installed low pressure compressor

(LPC)fan blade roots on-wing and during overhaul, and relubrication according to accumulated life cycles. That AD also introduces an alternative technique to ultrasonically inspect installed fan blades on-wing using a surface wave ultrasonic probe. Also, that AD introduces application of Metco 58 blade root coating as an optional terminating action. This proposed AD would require the same actions but would add compliance paragraphs to relax the compliance schedule for repetitive inspections for RB211-535E4 engines operating in flight profiles A and B, if certain requirements are met. This proposed AD results from RR issuing Mandatory Service Bulletin

(MSB)No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 5. That MSB introduces a relaxed repetitive compliance schedule for RB211-535E4 engines operating in flight profiles A and B, if certain requirements are met. We are proposing this AD to detect cracks in LPC fan blade roots, which if not detected, could lead to uncontained multiple fan blade failure, and damage to the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 011-44-1332-242-424; fax: 011-44-1332-249-936 for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; e-mail: *ian.dargin@faa.gov;* telephone:

(781)238-7178; fax:

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-29343; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-13-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion On January 18, 2005, we issued AD 2005-02-05, Amendment 39-13950 (70 FR 3863, January 27, 2005). That AD requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections of installed LPC fan blade roots on-wing and during overhaul using a surface wave ultrasonic probe, and relubrication according to accumulated life cycles. That AD also adds the application of Metco 58 blade root coating as an optional terminating action. That AD results from RR issuing MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 4, which contains revised Accomplishment Instructions and consumable materials list. Actions Since We Issued AD 2005-02-05 Since we issued AD 2005-02-05, Rolls-Royce plc updated MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 4, dated April 2, 2004, to Revision 5, dated March 8, 2007, for RR RB211 series turbofan engines. Revision 5 relaxes the compliance for repetitive inspections for RB211-535E4 engines operating in flight profiles A and B, if certain requirements are met. Clarification Changes Also, as clarification, we changed the Table 4 initial compliance from “65% hard life” to “within 350 cycles after achieving 65% hard life”. These changes better reflect the proposed AD wording, with the latest MSB. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Rolls-Royce plc MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 5, dated March 8, 2007. That MSB describes procedures for ultrasonic inspection of high cyclic life blades on-wing with either the LPC fan blades in place or removed from the LPC. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom (UK), classified the original issue of the service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 002-01-2000 to ensure the airworthiness of these RR engines in the UK. Bilateral Agreement Information This engine model is manufactured in UK and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of Section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the UK kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspection of installed LPC fan blade roots on-wing and during overhaul using a surface wave ultrasonic probe, and relubrication according to accumulated life cycles. This proposed AD would also maintain the application of Metco 58 blade root coating as an optional terminating action. The proposed AD would require that you do these actions using the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 788 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 7 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $358,540. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed 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. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13950 (70 FR 3863, January 27, 2005) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to read as follows: **Rolls-Royce plc:** Docket No. FAA-2007-29343; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-13-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by December 24, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD revises AD 2005-02-05, Amendment 39-13950. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc

(RR)RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 series turbofan engines with low pressure compressor

(LPC)fan blades with the part numbers (P/Ns) listed in Table 1 of this AD. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 757 and Tupolev Tu204 series airplanes. Table 1 follows: Table 1.—Applicable LPC Fan Blade P/Ns UL16135 UL16171 UL16182 UL19643 UL20044 UL20132 UL20616 UL21345 UL22286 UL23122 UL24525 UL24528 UL24530 UL24532 UL24534 UL27992 UL28601 UL28602 UL29511 UL29556 UL30817 UL30819 UL30933 UL30935 UL33707 UL33709 UL36992 UL37090 UL37272 UL37274 UL37276 UL37278 UL38029 UL38032 Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from RR issuing Mandatory Service Bulletin

(MSB)No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 5, that introduces a relaxed repetitive compliance schedule for RB211-535E4 engines operating in flight profiles A and B, if certain requirements are met. We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in low pressure compressor

(LPC)fan blade roots, which if not detected, could lead to uncontained multiple fan blade failure, and damage to 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.

(f)If you have a full set of fan blades, modified using RR Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-C946, Revision 2, dated September 26, 2002, that can be identified by a blue triangle etched on the blade airfoil suction surface close to the leading edge tip of each blade, no further action is required.

(g)On RB211-535E4 engines, operated to Flight Profile A, ultrasonically inspect, and if required, relubricate using the following Table 2: Table 2.—RB211-535E4 Flight Profile A Engine location Initial inspection within cycles-since-new

(CSN)Type action In accordance with mandatory service bulletin

(MSB)Repeat inspection within

(1)On-wing 17,350

(i)Root Probe, inspect and relubricate, OR RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(7), dated March 8, 2007 1,400

(ii)Wave Probe RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(7), dated March 8, 2007 1,150

(2)In Shop 17,350 Root Probe, inspect and relubricate RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(4), dated March 8, 2007 1,400

(h)On RB211-535E4 engines, operated to Flight Profile B, ultrasonically inspect, and if required, relubricate using the following Table 3: Table 3.—RB211-535E4 Flight Profile B Engine location Initial inspection within

(CSN)Type action In accordance with MSB Repeat inspection within

(1)On-wing 12,350

(i)Root Probe, inspect and relubricate, OR RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(7), dated March 8, 2007. 850

(ii)Wave Probe RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(7), dated March 8, 2007 700

(2)In Shop 12,350 Root Probe, inspect and relubricate RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(4), dated March 8, 2007 850

(i)On RB211-535E4 engines, operated to combined Flight Profile A and B, ultrasonically inspect, and if required, relubricate using the following Table 4: Table 4.—RB211-535E4 Flight Profile A and B Engine location Initial inspection within

(CSN)Type action In accordance with MSB Repeat inspection within

(1)On-wing 350 cycles after achieving 65% hard life (To calculate, see MSB Compliance Section 1.C.(4))

(i)Root Probe, inspect and relubricate, OR RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(7), dated March 8, 2007 As current flight profile. See paragraphs

(j)and

(k)of this AD.

(ii)Wave Probe RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(7), dated March 8, 2007 As current flight profile. See paragraphs

(j)and

(k)of this AD.

(2)In Shop 350 cycles after achieving 65% hard life (To calculate, see MSB Compliance Section 1.C.(4)) Root Probe, inspect and relubricate RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(4), dated March 8, 2007 As current flight profile. See paragraphs

(j)and

(k)of this AD.

(j)For RB.211-535E4 engines that are currently flying in Profile A, if the initial inspection is completed before X minus 1,400 cycles then the next inspection may be delayed to X, where X is 65% of the revised life limit.

(k)For RB.211-535E4 engines that are currently flying in Profile B, if the initial inspection is completed before X minus 850 cycles then the next inspection may be delayed to X, where X is 65% of the revised life limit.

(l)Fan blades that have been operated within RB.211-535E4 Flight Profile A and B will have final life as defined in the Time Limits Manual. See References Section 1.G.(3), of MSB RB.211-72-C879, Revision 5, dated March 8, 2007.

(m)On RB.211-535E4-B engines, ultrasonically inspect, and if required, relubricate using the following Table 5: Table 5.—RB211-535E4-B Engine location Initial inspection within

(CSN)Type action In accordance with MSB Repeat inspection within

(1)On-wing 17,000

(i)Root Probe, inspect and relubricate, OR RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.A.(1) through 3.A.(7), dated March 8, 2007 1,200

(ii)Wave Probe RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(7), dated March 8, 2007 1,000

(2)In Shop 17,000 Root Probe, inspect and relubricate RB.211-72-C879 Revision 5, 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(4), dated March 8, 2007 1,200 Optional Terminating Action

(n)Application of Metco 58 blade root coating using RR SB No. RB.211-72-C946, Revision 2, dated September 26, 2002, constitutes terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and

(k)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(o)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Previous Credit

(p)Previous credit is allowed for initial and repetitive inspections performed using AD 2003-12-15 (Amendment 39-13200, 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003), RR MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 3, dated October 9, 2002, and RR MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 4, dated April 2, 2004. Related Information

(q)CAA airworthiness directive AD 002-01-2000, dated October 9, 2002, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 18, 2007. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-20999 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. PTO-T-2007-0035] RIN 0651-AC17 Changes in the Requirement for a Description of the Mark in Trademark Applications AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proposes to amend the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases to require a description of the mark in all applications to register a mark not in standard characters. DATES: Comments must be received by December 24, 2007 to ensure consideration. ADDRESSES: The Office prefers that comments be submitted via electronic mail message to *TM Description Requirements@uspto.gov.* Written comments may also be submitted by mail to Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ) for additional instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The comments will be available for public inspection on the Office's Web site at *http://www.uspto.gov* . and will also be available at the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by telephone at

(571)272-8742. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The USPTO proposes to amend 37 CFR 2.37 to require trademark applicants to include a description of the mark for all marks not in standard characters and to make conforming amendments to 37 CFR 2.32(a) and 2.52(b)(5). The requirement will facilitate greater accuracy and efficiency in design coding and in pseudo-mark data determinations. Therefore, the revised rules will promote more accurate and complete searchability of marks in the USPTO records. The current rule regarding descriptions of marks provides that a description “may be included in the application and must be included if required by the trademark examining attorney.” 37 CFR 2.37. Because the USPTO has concluded that the description contributes to the accuracy of design coding and pseudo-mark determinations that are made before the application reaches the examining attorney, and ultimately to more complete searches, the USPTO proposes a rule change to facilitate initial design coding and to make available a description of the mark in all files where it is likely to be useful. Thus, any applicant whose mark is not in standard characters would be required to provide a description of the mark as an application requirement. Trademarks may consist of words, designs, or both. Both the USPTO and the public search USPTO trademark records for purposes of assessing likelihood of confusion with proposed trademarks. Words in trademarks generally can be searched directly. In contrast, designs in trademarks must be classified based on the elements they contain (e.g., stars or trees), so that they can be searched. In its electronic systems, the USPTO applies a coding system based on the Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks. Codes established under the system are assigned to trademark applications that contain designs at the time they are filed. The design classification system used is unique to the USPTO, and is applied only to marks with design elements. Design coding of marks in new applications initially occurs before the applications are assigned to examining attorneys. When the mark in an application contains a design element, USPTO employees or contractors in the Pre-Examination section designate and apply the appropriate design codes for the mark. To improve searchability, the USPTO has also created a pseudo-mark field for some marks in the electronic database. The pseudo-mark field shows the literal equivalent of a pictorial representation in a design mark, or spellings that are similar or phonetically equivalent to wording in a word mark. The USPTO has engaged in a variety of efforts to improve the accuracy of its design code and pseudo-mark data, and continues to explore options for further improvement. The USPTO has determined that requiring the applicant to describe any design elements proves very useful for determining the proper design codes and pseudo-mark data. For example, the applicant's description of its design elements can clarify ambiguous design elements or “double entendres” created by design elements, and will help to ensure that the design coding and pseudo-mark determinations have been comprehensive. Discussion of Specific Rules The Office proposes to revise 37 CFR 2.37 and to make conforming amendments to 37 CFR 2.32(a) and 2.52(b)(5). These rules concern descriptions of marks in trademark applications (37 CFR 2.37), the requirements for a complete application (37 CFR 2.32), and the requirements for drawings (37 CFR 2.52). Trademark Rule 2.37 currently provides that a description of the mark may be mandated by the trademark examining attorney. The proposed revisions make the inclusion of a description mandatory for all applications where the mark is not in standard characters. The remainder of § 2.37 would not change, in that a description may be included for standard character mark applications, and must be included if the trademark examining attorney so requires. The conforming amendments make the inclusion of a description a requirement for a complete application and remove discretion from applicants as to whether a description is necessary for non-standard character marks. Rulemaking Requirements *Executive Order 13132:* This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). *Executive Order 12866:* This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). *Regulatory Flexibility Act:* As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law), neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are required. See 5 U.S.C. 603. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* This notice involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The collections of information involved in this notice have been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under OMB control numbers 0651-0009 and 0651-0050. This notice proposes to amend 37 CFR 2.37 to require a description of the mark in all applications to register a mark not in standard characters. The USPTO is not resubmitting information collection packages to OMB for its review and approval because the changes in this proposed rule do not affect the information collection requirements associated with OMB control numbers 0651-0009 and 0651-0050. The estimated annual reporting burden for OMB control number 0651-0009 Applications for Trademark Registration is 253,801 responses and 74,593 burden hours. The estimated time per response ranges from 15 to 23 minutes, depending on the nature of the information. The time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information is included in the estimate. The collection is approved through September of 2008. The estimated annual reporting burden for OMB control number 0651-0050 Electronic Response to Office Action and Preliminary Amendment Forms is 117,400 responses and 19,958 burden hours. The estimated time per response is 10 minutes. The time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information is included in the estimate. The collection is approved through April of 2009. Comments are invited on:

(1)Whether the collection of information is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the agency;

(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information to respondents. Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding these information collections, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 (Attn: Cynthia C. Lynch), and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: Desk Officer for the Patent and Trademark Office). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks. For the reasons stated, 37 CFR part 2 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted. 2. Revise § 2.37 to read as follows: § 2.37 Description of mark. A description of the mark must be included if the mark is not in standard characters. In an application where the mark is in standard characters, a description may be included and must be included if required by the trademark examining attorney. 3. Add § 2.32(a)(8) to read as follows: § 2.32 Requirements for a complete application.

(a)* * *

(8)If the mark is not in standard characters, a description of the mark. 4. Revise § 2.52(b)(5) to read as follows: § 2.52 Types of drawings and format for drawings.

(b)* * *

(5)*Description of mark* . A description of the mark must be included. Dated: October 19, 2007. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E7-21075 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary 43 CFR Part 2 RIN 1090-AA61 Amendment to the Freedom of Information Act Regulations AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule: Clarifies the time limit that requesters have for filing FOIA appeals; clarifies that requesters must include the required documentation with their appeals or their appeals may be rejected by the FOIA Appeals Officer; clarifies that requesters must file a FOIA request with each separate bureau/office from which they are seeking records; changes the language regarding requests for expedited processing to be consistent with the language used in the FOIA and deletes a paragraph in that section pertaining to “due process rights;” makes the use of multitrack processing mandatory for all bureaus and offices; advises requesters that they may contact the bureau/office's FOIA Requester Service Center and the FOIA Public Liaison concerning the status of their requests; and includes current contact information for DOI's FOIA and Public Affairs/Office of Communications Contacts and its reading rooms (Headquarters). DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until December 24, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number 1090-AA61, by any of the following methods: — *Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov* [Follow the instructions for submitting comments] — *Mail or hand delivery:* OCIO/DOI, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 5312-MIB, Washington, DC 20240 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexandra Mallus by telephone at

(202)208-5342. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Interior published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on October 21, 2002, revising its regulations implementing the FOIA, 43 CFR Part 2. In this publication, the language used in § 2.21(d) (6), “How will the bureau respond to my request?” and the language used in § 2.29, “How long do I have to file an appeal?” were inconsistent with each other concerning the timeframe for filing an appeal. This proposed rule clarifies the 2002 final rule by noting that appeals must be received by the FOIA Appeals Officer no later than 30 workdays from the date of the final response. Additionally, this proposed rule clarifies that a requester's failure to include all correspondence between himself/herself and the bureau concerning his/her FOIA request will result in the Department's rejection of the appeal unless the FOIA Appeals Officer determines that good cause exists to accept the defective appeal. This proposed rule also changes § 2.22, “What happens if a bureau receives a request for records it does not have or did not create?” to eliminate paragraph (a)(1) of § 2.22, which has been construed by some courts to require bureaus that had received a FOIA request to refer the request to another bureau for a search of its records, regardless of whether the bureau that received the request had responsive records. The result of this change is that FOIA requesters must submit their requests in accordance with § 2.10, which requires that the FOIA requester specify which bureau's records are being sought or, at a minimum, specify that the FOIA requester is seeking the records of more than one bureau. Consistent with EO 13392, this proposed rule adds a new paragraph

(c)to § 2.12, “When can I expect the response?” advising requesters that they may contact the bureau/office's FOIA Requester Service Center and the FOIA Public Liaison concerning the status of their requests. Additionally, the language in sections 2.3 and 2.14 regarding expedited processing has been amended to reflect the statutory language. The term “exceptional need” has been replaced with “compelling need,” and paragraph (a)(3) in § 2.14 pertaining to “due process rights” has been removed. This proposed rule also revises the language in § 2.26, “Does the bureau provide multitrack processing of FOIA requests?” to make the use of multitrack processing mandatory for all bureaus and offices within the Department and remind the bureaus of the statutory requirement of due diligence. Finally, Appendix A to Part 2, Department of the Interior FOIA and Public Affairs Contacts and Reading Rooms, has been updated to include current contact information for DOI's FOIA and Public Affairs/Office of Communications Contacts and its reading rooms (Headquarters) and to delete the FOIA contacts and reading rooms for the field offices. In the future, bureaus/offices will maintain information pertaining to the field offices on their FOIA Web sites to ensure that their contact information is accurate and current. Public Comment Policy Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and therefore is not subject to OMB review because it is not likely to result in a rule that may:

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments, or communities;

(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; or

(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act DOI certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 606(b)). Under the FOIA, agencies may recover only the direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the records processed for requesters. Thus, fees assessed by DOI are nominal. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based enterprises. It deals strictly with implementation of the FOIA within DOI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have any takings implications. It deals strictly with implementation of the FOIA within DOI. Therefore, a takings assessment is not required. Federalism (E.O. 13132) In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have Federalism implications as it deals strictly with implementation of the FOIA within DOI. Therefore, a Federalism assessment is not required. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) of 1969 is not required. Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Clarity of This Regulation Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

(1)Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

(2)Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

(3)Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?

(4)Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type and is preceded by the symbol “§” and a numbered heading; for example, “§ 2.7 What do I need to know before filing a FOIA request?”)

(5)Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-7229-MIB, Washington, DC 20240. List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees, Privacy. Dated: October 5, 2007. James E. Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary. For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend part 2 of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 2—RECORDS AND TESTIMONY: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552 and 552a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; and 43 U.S.C. 1460. Subpart A—General Information 2. In § 2.3, revise paragraph

(i)to read as follows: § 2.3 What terms do I need to know?

(i)*Expedited processing* means giving a FOIA request priority, and processing it ahead of other requests pending in the bureau because a requester has shown a compelling need for the records (see § 2.14). Subpart C—Requests for Records Under the FOIA 3. In § 2.12, add a new paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 2.12 When can I get the response?

(c)*Determining the status of your request.* To determine the status of your request, you should call, fax, or email the point of contact provided in the bureau/office's acknowledgment letter to you, referencing the FOIA control number assigned to your request. You may also contact the appropriate FOIA Requester Service Center. If you are dissatisfied with the FOIA Requester Service Center's response, you may contact the bureau/office's FOIA Public Liaison to resolve the issue. (The relevant names and telephone numbers are listed at *http://www.doi.gov/foia/liason.html* ). 4. In § 2.14, revise paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 2.14 When can I get expedited processing?

(a)A bureau will provide expedited processing when you request it if you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the bureau that there is a compelling need for the records. The following circumstances demonstrate a compelling need:

(1)Where failure to expedite the request could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or

(2)An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity if the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information. In most situations, a person primarily engaged in disseminating information will be a representative of the news media. The requested information must be the type of information which has particular value that will be lost if not disseminated quickly, and ordinarily refers to a breaking news story of general public interest. Therefore, information of historical interest only, or information sought for litigation or commercial activities, would not qualify, nor would a news media deadline unrelated to breaking news. 5. In § 2.21, revise paragraph (d)(6) to read as follows: § 2.21 How will the bureau respond to my request?

(d)* * *

(6)A statement that the denial may be appealed to the FOIA Appeals Officer (see Appendix A to this Part), in accordance with the requirements in § 2.29. 6. In § 2.22, revise paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 2.22 What happens if a bureau receives a request for records it does not have or did not create?

(a)*Consultations/referrals within DOI.* If a bureau (other than the Office of Inspector General) receives a request for records in its possession that another bureau created or is substantially concerned with, it will consult with the other bureau before deciding whether to release or withhold the records. Alternatively, the bureau may refer the request, along with the records, to that bureau for direct response. The bureau that received the request will notify you of the referral in writing, along with the name of a contact in the other bureau(s) to which the referral was made. A referral does not restart the statutory time limit for responding to your request. 7. Revise § 2.26 to read as follows: § 2.26 Does the bureau provide multitrack processing of FOIA requests?

(a)All bureaus will use three processing tracks to distinguish between simple, normal, and complex requests based on the amount of time needed to process the request. FOIA requests will be placed in one of the following tracks:

(1)*Simple:* 1-5 workdays;

(2)*Normal:* 20 workdays; or

(2)*Complex:* over 20 workdays.

(b)Bureaus will exercise due diligence in processing requests in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA. Requesters should assume, unless notified by the bureau, that their request is in the “Normal” track.

(c)A bureau should, if possible, give requesters in its complex track the opportunity to limit the scope of their request in order to qualify for faster processing. A bureau doing so will contact the requester by telephone (which should be promptly followed up by a written communication) or in writing, whichever is more efficient in each case.

(d)See the Department's FOIA home page at *http://www.doi.gov/foia/policy.html* for details. Subpart D—FOIA Appeals 8. Revise § 2.29 to read as follows: § 2.29 How long do I have to file an appeal?

(a)Appeals covered by § 2.28(a)(1), (2),

(4)and (5). Your FOIA appeal must be received by the FOIA Appeals Officer no later than 30 workdays from the date of the bureau/office's letter responding to your request in full or in part.

(b)Appeals covered by § 2.28(a)(3). You may file an appeal any time after the time limit for responding to your request has passed.

(c)Appeals covered by § 2.28(a)(6). Your FOIA appeal must be received by the FOIA Appeals Officer no later than 30 workdays from the date of the letter denying the fee waiver.

(d)Appeals covered by 2.28(a)(7). You should file an appeal as soon as possible.

(e)Appeals arriving or delivered after 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, will be deemed received on the next workday. 9. In § 2.30, revise paragraph

(b)to read as follows: § 2.30 How do I file an appeal?

(b)You must include with your appeal copies of all correspondence between you and the bureau concerning your FOIA request, including your request and the bureau's response (if there is one). Failure to include with your appeal all correspondence between you and the bureau will result in the Department's rejection of your appeal, unless the FOIA Appeals Officer determines, in the FOIA Appeal Officer's sole discretion, that good cause exists to accept the defective appeal. The time limits for responding to your appeal will not begin to run until the documents are received. 10. Appendix A to part 2 is revised to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 2—Department of the Interior FOIA and Public Affairs Contacts, and Reading Rooms Departmental Departmental FOIA Officer, Senior FOIA Program Officer, MS-5312-MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-5342,

(202)208-2588, Fax No.

(202)208-6867,

(202)208-6084 Departmental FOIA/Privacy Act, Appeals Officer, MS-6556-MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-5339, Fax No.

(202)208-6677 Departmental Privacy Act Officer, MS-5312-MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)219-0868, Fax No.

(202)208-6084 Public Affairs Office, Office of Communications, MS-6013, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-6416, Fax No.

(202)208-3231 Reading Room—DOI's Library, MIB (C Street Entrance), 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-5815, Fax No.

(202)208-6773 Office of the Secretary FOIA Officer, MS-116, SIB, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-6045, Fax No.

(202)219-2374 Public Affairs Office, Office of Communications, MS-6013, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-6416, Fax No.

(202)208-3231 Reading Room—DOI's Library, MIB (C Street Entrance), 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-5815, Fax No.

(202)208-6773 Office of Inspector General FOIA Officer, MS-5341, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(703)487-5436, Fax No.

(703)487-5406 Public Affairs Office, MS-5341 MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)513-0326, Fax No.

(202)219-3856 Reading Room, Room 5341, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(703)487-5443, Fax No.

(703)487-5400 Office of the Solicitor

(SOL)Headquarters FOIA Officer, MS-6556, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-6505, Fax No.

(202)208-5206 Public Affairs Office, Office of Communications, MS-6013, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-6416, Fax No.

(202)208-3231 Reading Room, Room 2328, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-6505, Fax No.

(202)208-5206 Fish & Wildlife Service

(FWS)Headquarters FOIA Officer, Arlington Square, Room 222, 4401 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203, Telephone No.

(703)358-2504, Fax No.

(703)219-2428 Public Affairs Office, MS-3447, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-5634, Fax No.

(202)208-5850 Reading Room, Arlington Square, Room 224, 4401 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203, Telephone No.

(703)358-1730, Fax No.

(703)358-2269 National Park Service

(NPS)Headquarters FOIA Officer, Office of the CIO, Org Code 2550, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)354-1925, Fax No.

(202)371-6741 Public Affairs Office, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127, Telephone No.

(202)208-6843, Fax No.

(202)219-0910 Reading Room, Administrative Program Center, 1201 Eye St., NW., 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone No.

(202)354-1925, Fax No.

(202)371-6741 Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)Headquarters FOIA Officer, MS-WO-560, 1620 L St., NW., Room 725, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)452-5013, Fax No.

(202)452-5002 Public Affairs Office, MS-WO-610, 1620 L St., NW., Room 406, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)452-5125, Fax No.

(202)452-5124 Reading Room, 1620 L St., NW.—Room 750, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)452-5193, Fax No.

(202)452-0395 Minerals Management Service

(MMS)Headquarters FOIA Officer, 381 Elden St. MS-2200, Herndon, VA 20170-4817, Telephone No.

(703)787-1689, Fax No.

(703)787-1207 Public Affairs Office, Office of Communications, 1849 C St., NW., MS-4230, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-3985, Fax No.

(202)208-3968 Reading Room, Public Information Office, 1201 Elmwood Park Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70123-2394, Telephone No.

(800)200-GULF, Fax No.

(504)736-2620 Office of Surface Mining

(OSM)Headquarters FOIA Officer, MS-130, SIB, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-2961, Fax No.

(202)219-3092 Office of Communications, MS-262, SIB, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-2565, Fax No.

(202)501-0549 Reading Room, Contact: OSM FOIA Officer, Room 263, SIB, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-2961, Fax No.

(202)501-4734 U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS)Headquarters FOIA Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley, Dr., MS-807, Reston, VA 20192, Telephone No.

(703)648-7158, Fax No.

(703)648-6853 Office of Communications, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., MS-119, Reston, VA 20192, Telephone No.

(703)648-4460, Fax No.

(703)648-4466 Reading Room, USGS Library, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA 20192, Telephone No.

(703)648-4302, Fax No.

(703)648-6373 Bureau of Reclamation

(BOR)Headquarters FOIA Officer, P.O. Box 25007, 84-21300, Denver, CO 80225-0007, Telephone No.

(303)445-2048, Fax No.

(303)445-6575 Public Affairs Office, P.O. Box 25007, 82-40000, Denver, CO 80225-0007, Telephone No.

(303)236-7000, Fax No.

(303)236-9235 Reading Room, Reclamation Library, P.O. Box 25007, 84-27960, Denver, CO 80225-0007, Telephone No.

(303)445-2072, Fax No.

(303)445-6303 Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)Headquarters FOIA Officer, MS-3071, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-4542, Fax No.

(202)208-6597 Public Affairs Office, MS-3658, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)208-3710, Fax No.

(202)501-1516 Reading Room, Room 3071, MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone No.

(202)513-0883, Fax No.

(202)208-6597 Note: For more information on FOIA, including the most current listing of FOIA Contacts and reading rooms, visit DOI's FOIA Web site at *http://www.doi.gov/foia/.* Henceforth, Appendix A to 43 CFR Part 2 will be maintained and updated on DOI's FOIA Web site. If you do not have access to the Web, please contact the appropriate bureau FOIA Officer or the Departmental FOIA Office. [FR Doc. E7-21012 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 379, 381, 385, 390, and 395 [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3706] RIN 2126-AA76 Hours of Service of Drivers; Supporting Documents SNPRM; Withdrawal AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); withdrawal. SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its November 3, 2004, SNPRM that proposed requirements for the collection and use of documents to verify the accuracy of driver records of duty status. The FMCSA intends to publish a new notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)at a later date. DATES: The SNPRM published on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 63997), is withdrawn as of October 25, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mancl, Team Leader, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone:

(202)493-0442. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The FMCSA regulates the number of hours that a driver of a commercial motor vehicle may drive and be on duty, the minimum length of rest periods between tours of duty, and weekly limits. Drivers must keep a log, called the “record of duty status” (RODS), that indicates their status (driving, on duty, not driving, off duty, or in a sleeper berth) for every day. These RODS are submitted to the motor carrier, which must retain them for six months. On November 28, 1982 (47 FR 53383), the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)(predecessor to FMCSA) promulgated a final rule that required a motor carrier to verify the accuracy of the hours of service

(HOS)RODS of each driver and to ensure that drivers record their duty status in a specified format. The rule is codified in § 395.8 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Congress directed FHWA to revise the rule to improve both driver and carrier compliance and the effectiveness and efficiency of HOS enforcement, at a cost reasonable to the motor carrier industry (section 113(a) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 (HMTAA) Public Law 103-311, August 26, 1994, 108 Stat. 1673 at 1676). Section 113(b) directs the Agency to specify the number, type, and frequency of “supporting documents”, that is documents used to verify the accuracy of driver RODS, that must be maintained as well as the identification items that must be a part of the documents. In response to section 113(a), FHWA published an NPRM on supporting documents in 1998 (63 FR 19457, April 20, 1998). The FMCSA included further proposals on supporting documents in its proposed rule on hours of service in 2000 (65 FR 25540, May 2, 2000). On November 3, 2004, FMCSA published an SNPRM proposing language to clarify the duties of motor carriers and drivers with respect to supporting documents, and requesting further comments on the issue (69 FR 63997). The SNPRM addressed self-monitoring systems, RODS, supporting documents for use in monitoring and enforcing the HOS, and definitions for “supporting documents” and “employee.” The FMCSA proposed requiring a motor carrier to maintain HOS supporting documents in a way that let the carrier or a Federal or State investigator readily connect the supporting documents to the RODS that they support. The FMCSA expected the proposed language would clarify a motor carrier's duties under current regulations and increase motor carrier compliance with this requirement. A carrier's “self-monitoring system” would be the primary method a motor carrier would use to ensure drivers' compliance with the HOS regulations. The SNPRM listed documents that could serve as supporting documents. Discussion of Comments The FMCSA received 197 comments in response to the SNPRM. Comments were received from for-hire and private motor carriers, trade associations, a State enforcement agency, safety advocacy groups, an insurance group, a driving school, wireless equipment businesses, and individuals. Commenters expressed concerns about varying aspects of the proposed rule. The following is a summary of the main comments. Documentation Some commenters seemed to have misconstrued the list of supporting documents examples, and they were concerned about the number and quality of supporting documents proposed in the SNPRM. Some commenters believed FMCSA expected motor carriers to have access to or generate all or most of the documents listed. They also stated that many of the examples on the list did not provide data that could be used to verify RODS. Some commenters noted that short-haul operators did not have access to or generate many of the documents listed in the SNPRM. Several commenters noted that small motor carriers could have been at a disadvantage during an audit because they do not maintain a large number of documents with which to reconcile RODS. One association stated that the proposed rule violated drivers' privacy rights. Other commenters were concerned that failure to maintain all documents that supported drivers' RODS would constitute a violation of the proposed rule. Self-Monitoring System Commenters were concerned about the lack of specificity in defining the concept of a “self-monitoring system.” Some commenters suggested that the use of statistically valid methods of sampling RODS and their supporting documents should indicate an adequate system. Some commenters objected to the use of a 10-percent failure rate in assessing a self-monitoring system because there was no rationale for that percentage. Burden Many commenters contended that the requirement to verify, inspect, and maintain all records generated by a driver was unrealistic and burdensome, particularly for small motor carriers. Some commenters stated that FMCSA's assertion that the proposed rule imposed minimal burdens on compliant motor carriers was incorrect and vastly underestimated the actual paperwork burden. Commenters believed the proposed rule was vague and would require them to retain records they did not keep and to devote inordinate amounts of staff time to linking supporting documents to RODS. Drivers, particularly owner-operators operating under leases, complained that they would have to make copies of documents that they need for other purposes so that they could submit the documents to a motor carrier. Motor carriers would also have had to retain multiple copies of some documents because they are needed for other purposes. Some commenters stated that if the records were retained electronically, a requirement to link electronic records to a driver's RODS would entail considerable reprogramming of existing systems. Some commenters indicated that the proposed rule would unfairly burden smaller motor carriers who did not need an electronic tracking system. Cost estimates submitted by a few commenters far exceeded those presented by FMCSA. Other Issues Some commenters recommended the use of electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) in place of supporting documents. Other commenters objected to the use of EOBRs. A substantial number of commenters objected to the definition of supporting documents as being too broad. Some commenters were concerned that FMCSA would require both paper and electronic records. A number of commenters stated the proposed rule did not meet the statutory criteria for supporting documents as defined in the HMTAA. Other commenters were concerned that applications for exemptions would overwhelm FMCSA resources. Some commenters were worried that the exemptions would be routinely granted, thereby undermining the usefulness of the rule. Commenters raised issues related to the application of the rule and its enforcement; they questioned whether it was fair to cite a motor carrier for a driver's RODS violations when the carrier had identified and disciplined the driver for those violations. A number of commenters raised concerns about copies of records and documents, location of records, and the retention period, reflecting confusion and uncertainty about the proposed document collection and retention requirements. Commenters also made suggestions about the definitions of “employee” and “falsification.” FMCSA Decision The FMCSA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking action. There are issues with the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) analysis supporting this action. In response to comments that the Agency's estimated information collection burden associated with the proposed rule significantly underestimated the actual burden the industry would confront, FMCSA reevaluated its analysis of the rule as required by the PRA. The Agency discovered that the PRA analysis proposed for this rule did not account for the supporting document collection and retention burdens associated with the existing driver RODS information collection requirements. This oversight initially occurred in the 1998 NPRM when the Agency relied upon the burden assessment conducted for the 1982 Drivers Log Rule, which captured the paperwork burden for maintaining driver logs but did not capture the burden of collecting and maintaining supporting documents. Accordingly, the Agency withdraws this rulemaking action in order to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the information collection burden associated with the existing supporting documents requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. After the paperwork analysis that accurately identifies the information collection burden associated with the existing supporting documents requirements is complete, the Agency intends to initiate a new rulemaking action to comply with the requirements of Section 113 of the HMTAA. This will ensure that the new rulemaking proposal is based on an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the existing information collection inventory for supporting documents. It will further allow the opportunity for notice and comment on the rulemaking proposal without confusion associated with previous stages of this rulemaking action. Issued on: October 18, 2007. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-20980 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P 72 206 Thursday, October 25, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, South Dakota, Upper Spring Creek Project Area AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to use multiple vegetation treatments focused on creating a landscape condition more adapted to fire and that reduces potential for high severity wildfire near at-risk communities and in the wildland-urban interface, and reduce the threat to ecosystem components including forest resources from an existing insect epidemic. The proposal is being planned for the 44,100 acre Upper Spring Creek Project Area that includes about 39,700 acres of National Forest System land and about 4,300 acres of interspersed private land. The project area generally extends westward from west of Hill City, South Dakota encompassing the Upper Spring Creek watershed. This project will be conducted as an authorized project under section 102 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). Actions proposed for the Upper Spring Creek Project Area include the following: • Remove conifers from hardwood stands such as aspen and birch and by restoring meadows (est. 3,800 acres). • Reduce the amount of fuel that currently exists and that created by vegetation treatment activities. Treatment could include lopping, crushing, piling and burning; creating fuel breaks along roads and adjacent to private property, particularly those properties with houses and subdivisions. Prescribed broadcast burning of up to 14,200 acres is also planned to not only reduce fuel levels, but also benefit big game and other wildlife resources. • Thin and harvest approximately 23,500 acres of pine stands using a variety of treatments to reduce the overall density of pine trees and create a mosaic of structural stages across the landscape. Both commercial harvest and non-commercial thinning will be sued to reduce the stand density, associated fuel hazard conditions and susceptibility to Mountain Pine Beetle

(MPB)infestations. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis would be most useful if received by 30-days following the date of this notice. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public review by February 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed by May 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, Upper Spring Creek Project Area, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota 57702. Telephone Number:

(605)343-1567. E-mail: *comments-rocky-mountain-black-hills-mystic@fs.fed.us* with “Upper Spring Creek” as the subject. Electronic comments must be readable in Word, Rich Text or PDF formats. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Katie Van Alstyne, Team Leader or Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger, at the Mystic Ranger District office in Rapid City at

(605)343-1567. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The actions proposed are in direct response to management direction provided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The site specific actions are designed, based on Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, to move existing resource conditions in the Upper Spring Creek Project Area toward meeting Forest Plan Goals and Objectives. Anticipate issues include: Wildlife and fuels hazards, MPB effects, prescribed fire, activity fuels reduction, vegetation and wildlife habitat diversity, and socioeconomic issues. The range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS is expected to be consistent with Sec. 104 of the HFRA. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the Upper Spring Creek Project is to: • Move toward achieving desired land and resource conditions, as provided by the Forest Plan, as amended. • Restore resource conditions to a healthy, resilient fire-adapted ecosystem. • Reduce the threat to ecosystem components including forest resources, from the existing insect (mountain pine beetle) epidemic. • Help protect local communities and resources from catastrophic wildlife. This project is focused on implementing management actions that move toward achieving: • Desired conditions and objectives embodied in Goals 2, 3, 7, and 10 of the Forest Plan (as amended). • Goals and objectives applicable to Forest Plan Management Area

(MA)4.1—Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis; MA 5.1—Resource Production Emphasis; and MA 5.4—Big Game Winter Range Emphasis, that lie within U.S.C., described in Chapter III of the Forest Plan (Phase II Amendment). • Goals of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act

(HFRA)of 2003 (HR 1904) and other National level initiatives and policy that provide procedural tools to hasten process focused on reducing the probability and occurrence of severe wildlife in the fire adapted ecosystems, especially near at risk communities

(ARC)and in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Addressing the existence of insect or disease on public and adjacent private lands. Moreover, it is appropriate that proposed actions be designed in consideration of applicable fuels hazard reduction management recommendations and guidelines provided by the Pennington County Community Wildfire Protection Plan

(CWPP)of 2007 and the Custer County CWPP of 2006. Proposed Action Proposed actions include the following: • Restore natural fuel breaks to help reduce the potential for large-scale, intense wildfire spread. Treatment includes removing conifers from hardwood stands such as aspen and birch and by restoring meadows (est. 3,800 acres). • Reduce the amount of fuel that currently exists and that created by vegetation treatment activities. Treatment could include lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning; creating fuel breaks along roads and adjacent to private property, particularly those properties with houses and subdivisions. Prescribed broadcast burning of up to 14,200 acres is also planned to not only reduce fuel levels, but also benefit big game and other wildlife resources. • Thin and harvest approximately 23,500 acres of pine stands using a variety of treatments to reduce the overall density of pine trees and create a mosaic of structural stages across the landscape. Both commercial and non-commercial sized trees would be removed utilizing multiple contracts including stewardship, timber sale, and service contracts. Responsible Official Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger, Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, SD 57702. Nature of Decision To Be Made The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action or possible alternative at this time. Scoping Process Comments and input regarding the proposal will be received via direct mailing from the public, other groups and agencies during the initial public comment period in October and November 2007. If you would like to be more involved, a public meeting is scheduled for Thursday November 8, 2007 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the City Hall conference room in Hill City, South Dakota. Comments submitted based on this NOI will be most useful if received within 30 days from the date of this notice. Response to the draft EIS will be sought from the interested public beginning in February 2008. Comment Requested This NOI provides information that the agency will prepare an environmental impact statement in response to public comment and feedback during the October and November 2007 scoping period. Comments received will assist the planning team to identify key issues and opportunities used to refine the proposal or possible alternatives. Comments on the DEIS will be requested during the 45 day comment period following the Notice of Availability, expected to be published in the **Federal Register** in February 2008 (See discussion below). *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978).* Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986)* and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).* Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 21) Dated: October 17, 2007. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest. [FR Doc. 07-5273 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 37

Traces to 37 documents

U.S. Code