Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

31,916 words·~145 min read·/register/2007/11/19/07-5720

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 222 Monday, November 19, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0202; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-185-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the vertical fin lugs, skin, and skin edges for discrepancies, an inspection of the flight control cables, fittings, and pulleys in section 48 for signs of corrosion, an inspection of the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, ball nut, and gimbal pins for signs of corrosion, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports indicating that moisture was found within the section 48 cavity. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the correct amount of sealant was applied around the vertical fin lugs, skin and the skin edges. Missing sealant could result in icing of the elevator cables, which could cause a system jam and corrosion of structural and flight control parts, resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2008. 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. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6447; fax

(425)917-6590. 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-2007-0202; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-185-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 We have received reports indicating that moisture was found within the section 48 cavity on Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 series airplanes. A root-cause investigation determined that, due to a manufacturing process error, airplanes were delivered with an incorrect amount of sealant around the station

(STA)1088 vertical fin lugs common to the section 48 skin. This condition, if not corrected, could result in icing of the elevator cables, which could cause a system jam and corrosion of structural and flight control parts, resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2007. The service bulletin describes the following procedures: • Inspecting the vertical fin lugs, skin, and skin edges for discrepancies (i.e. water ingress, corrosion damage, and missing, insufficient, or cracked sealant). • Performing a detailed inspection of the flight control cables, fittings, and pulleys in section 48 for signs of corrosion. • Performing a detailed inspection of the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, ball nut, and gimbal pins for signs of corrosion. • Performing applicable corrective actions. The corrective actions include repairing cracks, filling the space between the vertical fin lugs and skin, lubricating the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator and actuator gimbal pins, replacing any cracked sealant with a new sealant, and contacting Boeing for corrosion repair conditions, as applicable. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin In this proposed AD, the “inspection” and “visual inspection” specified in the Boeing service bulletin is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD. The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Costs of Compliance There are about 829 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 372 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $29,760, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0202; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-185-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 3, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to certain Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports indicating that moisture was found within the section 48 cavity. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the correct amount of sealant was applied around the vertical fin lugs, skin and the skin edges. Missing sealant could result in icing of the elevator cables, which could cause a system jam and corrosion of structural and flight control parts, resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections

(f)Within 2,500 flight cycles or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the detailed inspections specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2007.

(1)Do a detailed inspection of the vertical fin lugs, skin, and skin edges for discrepancies (i.e. water ingress, corrosion damage, and missing, insufficient, or cracked sealant).

(2)Do a detailed inspection of the flight control cables, fittings, and pulleys in section 48 for signs of corrosion.

(3)Do a detailed inspection of the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, ball nut, and gimbal pins for signs of corrosion. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector (i.e., the person performing the inspection). Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” Corrective Actions

(g)If any discrepancy or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2007; except where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done Using the Previous Service Information

(h)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, dated October 17, 2002; and Revision 1, dated April 28, 2005; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

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

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22548 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0201; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-163-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F Airplanes, Model DC-10-15 Airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) Airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F Airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F Airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all McDonnell Douglas airplane models identified above. This proposed AD would require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program, or the Airworthiness Limitations

(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, as applicable, to incorporate new AWLs for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require the initial accomplishment of a certain repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2008. 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. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). 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: Philip C. Kush, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5263; 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-2007-0201; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-163-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” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with 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 proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the following appendixes of the Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report, MDC-02K1003, Revision C, dated July 24, 2007 (hereafter referred to as “Report MDC-02K1003”): • Appendix B, Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs) • Appendix C, Airworthiness Limitation Instructions

(ALIs)• Appendix D, Short-Term Extensions Appendixes B and C of Report MDC-02K1003 describe new airworthiness limitations

(AWLs)for fuel tank systems. The new AWLs include: • CDCCLs, which are limitation requirements to preserve a critical ignition source prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic inspection, and • AWL inspections, which are periodic inspections of certain features for latent failures that could contribute to an ignition source. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program, or the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, as applicable, by incorporating the information in Appendixes B, C, and D of Report MDC-02K1003. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require the initial accomplishment of a certain repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary. 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 efficient and coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed AD. Rework Required When Implementing AWLs Into an Existing Fleet The maintenance program revision specified in paragraph

(g)of this proposed AD, and the AWLs revision specified in paragraph

(h)of this proposed AD, for the fuel tank systems, which involve incorporating the information specified in Report MDC-02K1003, would affect how operators maintain their airplanes. After doing the maintenance program revision or AWLs revision, as applicable, operators would need to do any maintenance on the fuel tank system as specified in the CDCCLs. Maintenance done before the maintenance program revision specified in paragraph (g), or the AWLs revision specified in paragraph (h), as applicable, would not need to be redone in order to comply with paragraph

(g)or (h). For example, the AWL that requires fuel pumps to be repaired and overhauled per the FAA-approved component maintenance manual

(CMM)applies to fuel pumps repaired after the maintenance programs are revised; spare or on-wing fuel pumps do not need to be reworked. For AWLs that require repetitive inspections, the initial inspection interval (threshold) starts from the date that the maintenance program revision specified in paragraph (g), or the AWLs revision specified in paragraph (h), as applicable, is done, except as provided by paragraph

(i)of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would require only the applicable maintenance program revision or AWL revision specified in this proposed AD and the initial inspection specified in paragraph (i). No other fleet-wide inspections need to be done. Changes to Fuel Tank System AWLs For certain airplanes, paragraph

(g)of this proposed AD would require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating certain information specified in Report MDC-02K1003. For certain other airplanes, paragraph

(h)of this proposed AD would require revising the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating certain information specified in Report MDC-02K1003. Paragraphs

(g)and

(h)allow accomplishing the revision in accordance with later revisions of Report MDC-02K1003 as an acceptable method of compliance if they are approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For certain airplanes, paragraph

(i)of this AD allows accomplishing the initial inspection and repair in accordance with later revisions of Report MDC-02K1003 as an acceptable method of compliance if they are approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. In addition, Appendixes B and C of Report MDC-02K1003 specify that any deviations from the published AWL instructions, including AWL intervals, must be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. Therefore, after the maintenance program or AWLs revision, any further revision to an AWL or AWL interval should be done as an AWL change, not as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). For U.S.-registered airplanes, operators must make requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector

(PMI)or Principal Avionics Inspector

(PAI)for approval by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. A non-U.S. operator should coordinate changes with its governing regulatory agency. Exceptional Short-Term Extensions Appendix D of Report MDC-02K1003 has provisions for an exceptional short-term extension of 30 days. An exceptional short-term extension is an increase in an AWL interval that may be needed to cover an uncontrollable or unexpected situation. For U.S.-registered airplanes, the FAA PMI or PAI must concur with any exceptional short-term extension before it is used, unless the operator has identified another appropriate procedure with the local regulatory authority. The FAA PMI or PAI may grant the exceptional short-term extensions described in Appendix D without consultation with the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. A non-U.S. operator should coordinate changes with its governing regulatory agency. As explained in Appendix D, exceptional short-term extensions must not be used for fleet AWL extensions. An exceptional short-term extension should not be confused with an operator's short-term escalation authorization approved in accordance with the Operations Specifications or the operator's reliability program. Ensuring Compliance With Fuel Tank System AWLs Boeing has revised the applicable maintenance manuals and task cards to address AWLs and to include notes about CDCCLs. Operators that do not use Boeing's revision service should revise their maintenance manuals and task cards to highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance personnel are complying with the CDCCLs. Recording Compliance With Fuel Tank System AWLs The applicable operating rules of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 129) require operators to maintain records with the identification of the current inspection status of an airplane. The AWLs contained in Appendix C of Report MDC-02K1003 are inspections for which the applicable sections of the operating rules apply. The AWLs contained in Appendix B of Report MDC-02K1003 are CDCCLs, which are tied to conditional maintenance actions. An entry into an operator's existing maintenance record system for corrective action is sufficient for recording compliance with CDCCLs, as long as the applicable maintenance manual and task cards identify actions that are CDCCLs. Changes to Component Maintenance Manuals

(CMMs)Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs Some of the AWLs in Appendix B of Report MDC-02K1003 refer to specific revision levels of the CMMs as additional sources of service information for doing the AWLs. Boeing is referring to the CMMs by revision level in the applicable AWL for certain components rather than including information directly in the AWL because of the volume of that information. As a result, the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, must approve the CMMs. Any later revision of those CMMs will be handled like a change to the AWL itself. Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval

(PMA)approved parts), methods, techniques, and practices not contained in the CMMs need to be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or governing regulatory authority. For example, certain pump repair/overhaul manuals must be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. Changes to Airplane Maintenance Manual Referenced in Fuel Tank System AWLs In other AWLs in Report MDC-02K1003, the AWLs contain all the necessary data. The applicable section of the maintenance manual is usually included in the AWLs. Boeing intended this information to assist operators in maintaining the maintenance manuals. A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be made without approval by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, through an appropriate FAA PMI or PAI, by the governing regulatory authority, or by using the operator's standard process for revising maintenance manuals. An acceptable change would have to maintain the information specified in the AWL such as the pass/fail criteria or special test equipment. Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information Although Report MDC-02K1003 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Costs of Compliance There are about 300 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 180 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $14,400, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0201; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-163-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 3, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD- 11 and MD-11F airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections and maintenance actions. Compliance with these limitations is required by 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these limitations, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for revision to the airworthiness limitations

(AWLs)in the Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report, MDC-02K1003, according to paragraph (g), (h), or

(k)of this AD, as applicable. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion 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. Service Information Reference

(f)The term “Report MDC-02K1003” as used in this AD, means the Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report, MDC-02K1003, Revision C, dated July 24, 2007. Revise the FAA-Approved Maintenance Program

(g)For Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, and Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes: Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate the information specified in Appendixes B, C, and D of Report MDC-02K1003. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of Report MDC-02K1003 is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Revise the AWLs Section

(h)For Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes: Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the information specified in Appendixes B, C, and D of Report MDC-02K1003, except that the initial inspection required by paragraph

(i)of this AD must be done at the applicable compliance time specified in that paragraph. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of Report MDC-02K1003 is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. Initial Inspection and Repair If Necessary

(i)For Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of the metallic overbraiding and red-wrap tape installed on the tail tank fuel quantity indication system

(FQIS)wiring to verify if the metallic overbraiding or red-wrap tape is damaged or shows signs of deterioration, in accordance with ALI 20-2 of Appendix C of Report MDC-02K1003. If any discrepancy is found during the inspection, repair the discrepancy before further flight in accordance with ALI 20-2 of Appendix C of Report MDC-02K1003. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance with a later revision of Report MDC-02K1003 is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. 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.” No Reporting Requirement

(j)Although Report MDC-02K1003 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(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.

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22547 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29332; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-172-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: This document announces a reopening of the comment period for the above-referenced NPRM. The NPRM proposed the adoption of a new airworthiness directive for all ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. That NPRM invites comments concerning the proposed requirements for revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This reopening of the comment period is necessary to provide additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed requirements of that NPRM. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 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 W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR, 316 Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France. 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for an AD for all ATR Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55113). The NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. The NPRM action invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, the DOT's Docket Management System

(DMS)was replaced by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a government-wide, electronic docket management system, which contains the public dockets and is the method used for submitting comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of proposed rulemaking actions. However, due to the service disruption caused by the transition from DOT's DMS to the FDMS, the docket material was not posted on the FDMS until November 1, 2007. Therefore, we have determined that the public was not provided adequate opportunity to submit comments on the NPRM. As a result, we have decided to reopen the comment period for 30 days to receive additional comments. No part of the regulatory information has been changed; therefore, the NPRM is not republished in the **Federal Register** . Comments Due Date We must receive comments on this AD action by December 19, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22546 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0204; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-083-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR Series Airplanes Powered by General Electric

(GE)CF6-45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3 or JT9D-7 Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes powered by General Electric

(GE)CF6-45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3 or JT9D-7 series engines. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections to find cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD mandates a terminating modification for certain inspections of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. This proposed AD results from reports of web and frame cracks and sheared attachment fasteners on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in possible loss of the rear engine mount bulkhead load path and consequent separation of the engine from the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2008. 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. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6421; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-0204; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-083-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://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 that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://www.regulations.gov.* Examining the 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 Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On January 2, 2002, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket No. 2001-NM-40-AD, to address the identified unsafe condition; that action was published in the **Federal Register** on January 9, 2002 (67 FR 1167). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections to find cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts of the rear engine mount bulkhead, and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, that NPRM provided for an optional terminating modification for the inspections of the outboard nacelle struts. That NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that fatigue cracking of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts of the rear engine mount bulkhead was found. The unsafe condition is cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. Subsequently, we worked with the manufacturer to ensure that the unsafe condition is adequately addressed and appropriate service instructions are available. We have also received many new reports of additional web and frame cracks and sheared attachment fasteners, and reports of cracks on the outboard struts of airplanes not identified in the applicability of that NPRM. In addition, we have considered comments submitted in response to that NPRM. In light of all this information, we have determined that the corrective actions required by that NPRM are inadequate for addressing the identified unsafe condition; therefore, we have withdrawn that NPRM and are issuing this new proposed AD to address the unsafe condition. Relevant Service Information In light of those new reports, Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. The original issue, dated December 21, 2000, was referred to in the NPRM, Docket No. 2001-NM-40-AD, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain actions. Revision 1 includes the following changes to the original issue: • Adds additional airplanes powered by General Electric

(GE)CF6-45/50 series engines to the effectivity (identified as Group 6 airplanes). • Adds modifications, inspections, and post-modification inspections for airplanes in Groups 1 through 5 (those included in the effectivity of the original issue of the service bulletin). • Adds outboard strut inspections for Groups 3, 4, and 5 airplanes included in the effectivity of the original issue of the service bulletin. The compliance times listed in the Part A Inspections, as specified in the service bulletin, are as follows: The compliance time for airplanes on which the detailed visual and high frequency eddy current

(HFEC)inspections of the inboard and outboard strut rear engine mount bulkheads in the original issue of the service bulletin have been done ranges from 180 days to 18 months from the release date of Revision 1 of the service bulletin or 350 flight cycles to 1,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier; the repetitive interval ranges from 350 flight cycles to 1,200 flight cycles or 18 months, whichever occurs earlier. The compliance time for airplanes on which the inspections in the original issue of the service bulletin have not been done is within 90 days from the release date of Revision 1 of the service bulletin to within 18 months or 1,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier; the repetitive interval ranges from 350 flight cycles to 1,200 flight cycles or 18 months, whichever occurs earlier. The compliance times depend on airplane configuration and nacelle strut position. The compliance times listed in the Part B Inspections—Post Modification, as specified in the service bulletin, are as follows: The compliance time for airplanes on which the repairs have been done ranges from 600 flight cycles to 7,200 flight cycles or 18 months after repair; the repetitive interval ranges from 600 flight cycles to 1,200 flight cycles or 18 months, whichever occurs earlier. At 7,200 flight cycles after repair the repetitive interval changes from doing a detailed visual inspection every 1,200 flight cycles or 18 months, to doing detailed visual and HFEC inspections every 1,200 flight cycles or 18 months. Depending on the group, the service bulletin specifies doing the following repairs, related investigative actions, and corrective actions: • For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes (on inboard struts only for Group 5): If any crack is found, do Repair 1 of the service bulletin. Replace cracked frames with new frames, and install repair doublers, chords, and corrosion resistant steel

(CRES)repair angles before further flight. Repair 1 includes the following related investigative and corrective actions: Detailed visual and HFEC inspections for cracks of the bulkhead frame, replacement of cracked frames, inspection of holes in frames for cracks, inspection of holes in chords for cracks, replacement of cracked chords, inspection of holes in frame and skin for cracks, contacting Boeing for repair for cracks in skin, inspection of holes on aft left-hand and right-hand sides of bulkhead in frame and skin for cracks, inspection of frame edge for cracks, and inspection of the holes on the forward side of bulkhead in frame and skin for cracks. • For Groups 1 and 5 airplanes (on inboard struts only for Group 5): If more than two broken fasteners are found, do Repair 2 or 3 of the service bulletin (depending on configuration). Install doublers, chords, and CRES repair angles before further flight. —Repair 2 includes the following related investigative and corrective actions: Detailed visual and HFEC inspections for cracks of the bulkhead frame, repair or replacement of cracked frames, inspection of holes in frames for cracks, inspection of holes in chords for cracks, replacement of cracked chords, inspection of holes on aft left-hand and right-hand sides of bulkhead in frame and skin for cracks, inspection of frame edge for cracks, and inspection of the holes on the forward side of bulkhead in frame and skin for cracks. —Repair 3 includes the following related investigative and corrective actions: Inspection of holes in frames for cracks, replacement of cracked frames, inspection of frame edge for cracks, and replacement of cracked frames. • For Group 1 airplanes: If any new crack, extension of stop-drilled crack, or more than two broken fasteners are found, do Repair 4 of the service bulletin. Install additional CRES repair angles before further flight. Repair 4 includes the following related investigative and corrective actions: HFEC inspections of the fastener holes and open holes of the bulkhead frame for cracks, stop drill or trim out cracks found in the frame only, contact Boeing for repair of cracks in the existing doubler or repair angle, and fabricate and install certain repair angles. • For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes: If only one or two broken fasteners are found, do Repair 5 of the service bulletin, replace the fasteners before further flight, and do Repair 2, 3, or 4, depending on configuration, within 18 or 36 months from the release date of the service bulletin, as applicable. Repair 5 includes the following related investigative and corrective actions: HFEC inspections of the fastener holes for cracks, and repair of any cracks. • For Groups 3, 4, and 6 airplanes: If any crack, or more than two broken fasteners are found, do the applicable repair before further flight (contact Boeing or repair per the structural repair manual, depending on configuration). • For Groups 3, 4, and 6 airplanes: If only one or two broken fasteners are found, do Repair 5 of the service bulletin before further flight. • For Group 5 airplanes (outboard strut only): If any crack or broken fastener is found, repair and contact Boeing before further flight. • For airplanes that have done post-modification inspections: If any crack or broken fastener is found, repair and contact Boeing before further flight. The procedures in the service bulletin specify doing the following modifications for Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes, depending on airplane configuration: • If no crack or broken fastener is found, do Repair 2 or 3 within 18 to 36 months. • If no new crack, extension of stop drill cracking, or broken fastener is found, do Repair 4 within 36 months. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed below. Differences Between the Alert Service Bulletin and This Proposed AD The alert service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways: • Using a method that we approve; or • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this NPRM, the “detailed visual inspection” specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” Costs of Compliance There are about 460 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 135 airplanes of U.S. registry. It would take about 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed detailed inspection, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed inspection is $43,200, or $320 per airplane, per inspection cycle. It would take about 32 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed high frequency eddy current inspection, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed high frequency eddy current inspection is $345,600, or $2,560 per airplane, per inspection cycle. For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes, it would take between approximately 10 and 95 work hours per strut (four struts per airplane) to accomplish the proposed modification, depending on airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Parts cost for the fasteners only would be between $269 and $897 per strut. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification would be between $4,276 and $33,988 per airplane. We are unable to provide specific information as to the cost of the actual parts other than the fasteners that would be required to accomplish the proposed modification since the parts would be supplied from operator stock. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0204; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-083-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 3, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, 200B, 200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes; certificated in any category; powered by General Electric

(GE)CF6-45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3 or JT9D-7 series engines; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of web and frame cracks and sheared attachment fasteners on the inboard and outboard nacelle strut. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in possible loss of the rear engine mount bulkhead load path and consequent separation of the engine from 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. Compliance Times

(f)Do all applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), and

(i)of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006, except that where paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin specifies starting the compliance time from “* * * the release date of Revision 1 of this service bulletin,” this AD requires starting the compliance time from the effective date of this AD. Initial and Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions

(g)For all airplanes: Perform detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Repeat the applicable inspection and actions thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Accomplishing the applicable repair (Repair 1, 2, 3, or 4, or repair per the 747 structural repair manual, section 54-11-03 or 54-12-03) terminates the requirements in this paragraph for that nacelle strut only. Modification

(h)For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes: Do the applicable modification (Repair 2, 3, or 4) of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and all the applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Accomplishing this modification terminates the requirements in paragraph

(g)of this AD for that nacelle strut only. Post-Modification Inspection/Corrective Actions

(i)For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes on which the applicable corrective actions (Repair 1, 2, 3, or 4) required by paragraph

(g)of this AD have been accomplished; or the applicable modification (Repair 2, 3, or 4) required by paragraph

(h)of this AD has been accomplished: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Repeat the applicable inspections and actions thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Exception to Service Bulletin

(j)If any crack or any broken fastener is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22542 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0203; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-105-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires reworking the surface of the ground stud bracket of the left and right transformer rectifier units

(TRUs)and the airplane structure mounting surface, and measuring the resistance from the bracket to the structure and the ground lugs to the bracket using a bonding meter. This proposed AD would revise the applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes and would also require, among other actions, installation of a new ground stud bracket using faying surface bonding. This proposed AD results from a report of loss of all direct current

(DC)power generation during a flight, due to inadequate electrical ground path between the ground bracket of the TRUs/main battery charger

(MBC)and the structure. We are proposing this AD to prevent depletion of the main battery while in flight, resulting from the loss of both TRUs and the MBC, and consequent loss of all DC power, which could impact the safe flight and landing of the airplane due to the loss of function or malfunction of essential/critical systems and displays in the cockpit. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2008. 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. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. 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: Louis Natsiopoulous, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)917-6478; fax

(425)917-6590. 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 ADDRESSE section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0203; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-105-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 On November 3, 2004, we issued AD 2004-23-14, amendment 39-13869 (69 FR 67043, November 16, 2004), for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That AD requires reworking the surface of the ground stud bracket of the left and right transformer rectifier units

(TRUs)and the airplane structure mounting surface, and measuring the resistance from the bracket to the structure and the ground lugs to the bracket using a bonding meter. That AD resulted from a report of loss of all direct current

(DC)power generation during a flight, due to inadequate electrical ground path between the ground bracket of the TRUs and the structure. We issued that AD to prevent depletion of the main battery and consequent loss of all DC power, which could cause the loss of flight critical systems. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2004-23-14 explains that we consider the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking to add a redundant TRU ground bracket on all 767 airplanes. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. In addition, Boeing has informed us that additional airplanes are subject to the identified unsafe condition (i.e., depletion of the main battery while in flight, resulting from the loss of both TRUs and the MBC, and consequent loss of all DC power, which could impact the safe flight and landing of the airplane due to the loss of function or malfunction of essential/critical systems and displays in the cockpit). Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0162, dated May 30, 2006. The service information describes the following major procedures, depending on the airplane configuration: • Reworking the existing ground stud bracket of the TRUs/MBC and structure mounting surface. • Measuring the resistance from that bracket to the structure and from the ground lugs to that bracket using a bonding meter. • Installing a new ground stud bracket using faying surface bonding. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2004-23-14 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD also would require accomplishing the applicable actions specified in service information described previously. In addition, this proposed AD would expand the applicability of the existing AD to include additional airplanes. Costs of Compliance There are about 932 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Rework and Measurement (required by AD 2004-23-14) 1 $80 $4 $84 262 $22,008. New proposed actions 1 or 2 1 80 208 $288 or $368 1 412 $118,656 or $151,616 1 . 1 Depending on the airplane configuration. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13869 (69 FR 67043, November 16, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0203; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-105-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 3, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-23-14. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0162, dated May 30, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of loss of all direct current

(DC)power generation during a flight, due to inadequate electrical ground path between the ground bracket of the left and right transformer rectifier unit (TRUs)/main battery charger

(MBC)and the structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent depletion of the main battery while in flight, resulting from the loss of both TRUs and the MBC, and consequent loss of all DC power, which could impact the safe flight and landing of the airplane due to the loss of function or malfunction of essential/critical systems and displays in the cockpit. 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. Requirements of AD 2004-23-14 Rework and Measure Resistance

(f)For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0119, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2004; on which the actions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-24-0119, dated May 14, 1998, and/or Revision 1, dated December 16, 1999, have been done: Within 45 days after December 1, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-23-14), rework the ground stud bracket of the TRUs and structure mounting surface, and measure the resistance from the bracket to the structure and the grounding lug to the bracket using a bonding meter, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0119, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2004, as revised by Boeing Information Notice 767-24A0119 IN 01, dated October 21, 2004, except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(g)Step 4, Sheet 3 of Figure 1 in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin only specifies to install one collar with part number (P/N) BACC30M6. However, a collar with P/N BACC30BL6 (as listed in paragraph 2.C., “Parts Necessary for Each Airplane” of the service bulletin) may be used as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). New Actions Required by This AD Rework, Installation, Measurement, as Applicable

(h)For all airplanes: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, rework the existing ground stud bracket of the TRUs/MBC, measure the resistance, and install a new ground stud bracket of the TRUs by doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-4A0162, dated May 30, 2006. AMOCs (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(ATC)Service; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment period. SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for an NPRM that was published on October 5, 2007. In that document, the FAA proposed performance requirements for certain avionics equipment on aircraft operating in specified classes of airspace within the United States National Airspace System. This extension is a result of requests from the: Air Transport Association of America, Inc., Air Carrier Association of America, Civil Aviation Aerospace Industries Association, National Air Carrier Association, and Regional Airline Association; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; and Cargo Airline Association to extend the comment period to the proposal. DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 56947), scheduled to close on January 3, 2008, is extended until March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-29305 using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Nordlie, ARM-108, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone

(202)267-7627. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Comments Invited:* The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1)Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* ;

(2)Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm* ; or

(3)Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. Background On October 5, 2007, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)issued Notice No. 07-15, Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) Out performance requirements to support Air Traffic Control

(ATC)service (72 FR 56947; October 5, 2007). Comments to that document were to be received on or before January 3, 2008. By request submitted to the docket on October 19, 2007, the Air Transport Association of America, Inc., Air Carrier Association of America, Civil Aviation Aerospace Industries Association, National Air Carrier Association, and Regional Airline Association requested that the FAA extend the comment period for Notice No. 07-15 for 60 days. The organizations requesting an extension noted that commenters “will have to develop as much information as possible as to future costs associated with implementing a final rule in order to provide meaningful input.” They also noted that the holiday season falls within the comment period and that the comment period is scheduled to close just after New Year's Day. Because of the importance of the rulemaking, in terms of advancing Air Traffic modernization, and the potential costs on the aviation industry that would result from a final rule, they requested that the public comment period be extended for an additional 60 days. In addition, on November 1, 2007, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association submitted a request to extend the comment period for Notice No. 07-15 for 60 days. They noted that additional “time is needed to assess questions surrounding making a final rule that is financially feasible for general aviation, improves ATC services at general aviation airports, results in user cost avoidance, and improves general aviation safety.” On November 5, 2007, the Cargo Airline Association submitted a request to extend the comment period for Notice No. 07-15 for 60 days. They noted the extension was needed to provide meaningful input to the rulemaking process. The FAA concurs with the petitioners' request for an extension of the comment period on Notice No. 07-15 for an additional 60 days, until March 3, 2008. We must balance the length of the comment period against the need to proceed expeditiously with a key component in managing the anticipated growth in the use of the National Airspace System. The FAA believes an additional 60 days would be adequate for commenters to collect cost and operational data necessary to provide meaningful comment to Notice No. 07-15. The FAA does not anticipate any further extension of the comment period for this rulemaking. Extension of Comment Period In accordance with section 11.47(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA has reviewed the requests submitted by the: Air Transport Association of America, Inc., Air Carrier Association of America, Civil Aviation Aerospace Industries Association, National Air Carrier Association, and Regional Airline Association; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; and Cargo Airline Association for extension of the comment period to Notice No. 07-15. These petitioners have shown a substantive interest in the proposed rule and good cause for the extension. The FAA has determined that extension of the comment period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause exists for taking this action. Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 07-15 is extended until March 3, 2008. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2007. Edie Parish, Acting Director, System Operations, Airspace and AIM Office. [FR Doc. E7-22544 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 167 [USCG-2007-0057] Port Access Route Study of Potential Vessel Routing Measures To Reduce Vessel Strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study

(PARS)on the area east and south of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to include the northern right whale critical habitat, mandatory ship reporting system area, and the Great South Channel including Georges Bank out to the exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)boundary. The purpose of the PARS is to analyze potential vessel routing measures that might help reduce ship strikes with the highly endangered North Atlantic right whale while minimizing any adverse effects on vessel operations. The recommendations of the study will inform the Coast Guard and may lead to appropriate international actions. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before January 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0057 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:

(1)*Online:* *http://www.regulations.gov* .

(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

(3)*Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice of study, call Mr. George Detweiler, Coast Guard Division of Navigation Systems, 202-372-1566, or send e-mail to *George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil* . If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee K. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation

(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. *Submitting comments:* If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this notice (USCG-2007-0057) and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments received during the comment period. *Viewing comments and documents:* To view comments, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time, click on “Search for Dockets,” and enter the docket number for this notice in the Docket ID box, and click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy Act:* Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . Definitions The following definitions should help you review this notice: *Area to be avoided* or *ATBA* means a routing measure comprising an area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly hazardous or it is exceptionally important to avoid casualties and which should be avoided by all vessels, or certain classes of vessels. *Deep-water route* means a route within defined limits, which has been accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom and submerged obstacles as indicated on nautical charts. *Inshore traffic zone* means a routing measure comprising a designated area between the landward boundary of a traffic separation scheme and the adjacent coast, to be used in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10(d), as amended, of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS). *Precautionary area* means a routing measure comprising an area within defined limits where vessels must navigate with particular caution and within which the direction of traffic flow may be recommended. *Recommended route* means a route of undefined width, for the convenience of vessels in transit, which is often marked by centerline buoys. *Recommended track* is a route which has been specially examined to ensure so far as possible that it is free of dangers and along which vessels are advised to navigate. *Regulated Navigation Area* or *RNA* means a water area within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established under 33 CFR part 165. *Roundabout* means a routing measure comprising a separation point or circular separation zone and a circular traffic lane within defined limits. Traffic within the roundabout is separated by moving in a counterclockwise direction around the separation point or zone. *Separation Zone* or *separation line* means a zone or line separating the traffic lanes in which vessels are proceeding in opposite or nearly opposite directions; or from the adjacent sea area; or separating traffic lanes designated for particular classes of vessels proceeding in the same direction. *Traffic lane* means an area within defined limits in which one-way traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming separation zones, may constitute a boundary. *Traffic Separation Scheme* or *TSS* means a routing measure aimed at the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and by the establishment of traffic lanes. *Two-way route* means a route within defined limits inside which two-way traffic is established, aimed at providing safe passage of ships through waters where navigation is difficult or dangerous. *Vessel routing system* means any system of one or more routes or routing measures aimed at reducing the risk of casualties; it includes traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, areas to be avoided, no anchoring areas, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts, precautionary areas, and deep-water routes. Background and Purpose *Why is this study being conducted?* The Administration is developing measures to reduce ship strikes of right whales. The goal of these measures is to address the lack of recovery of the right whale by reducing the likelihood and threat of ship strikes. Section 626 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (the 2004 Act) (enacted August 9, 2004) mandated that the Coast Guard:

(1)Cooperate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “in analyzing potential vessel routing measures for reducing vessel strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales”, and

(2)provide a final report of the analysis to Congress within 18 months after the date of enactment of the Act. The final report was delivered to Congress as required. A copy can be found in FDMS under this docket, USCG-2007-0057. The report contained possible future action items such as amending the Boston traffic separation scheme

(TSS)and establishing a Great South Channel area to be avoided (ATBA). The Coast Guard is charged with enforcing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the regulations issued under those statutes. One of the Coast Guard's primary strategic goals is the protection of the marine environment, including the conservation of living marine resources and enforcement of living marine resource laws. The Coast Guard works in collaboration with the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)to prevent ship strikes of right whales and other endangered whale species. The Coast Guard issues local and written periodic notices to mariners concerning ship strikes, issues NAVTEX messages alerting mariners to the location of right whales, and actively participates in the Mandatory Ship Reporting

(MSR)System that provides information to mariners entering right whale habitat. In addition, the Coast Guard provides patrols dedicated to enforcement of the ESA and the MMPA, provides limited vessel and aircraft support to facilitate right whale research and monitoring, and disseminates NMFS information packets to vessels boarded in or near right whale waters. NMFS asked the Coast Guard for assistance in protecting right whales by conducting this PARS. *When are port access route studies required?* Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act

(PWSA)(33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), the Commandant of the Coast Guard may designate necessary fairways and traffic separation schemes

(TSSs)to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from U.S. ports. The PWSA provides that such designation of fairways and TSSs must recognize, within the designated areas, the paramount right of navigation over all other uses. The PWSA requires the Coast Guard to conduct a study of potential traffic density and the need for safe access routes for vessels before establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs. Through the study process, we must coordinate with Federal, State, and foreign state agencies (as appropriate) and consider the views of maritime community representatives, environmental groups, and other interested stakeholders. A primary purpose of this coordination is, to the extent practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with other reasonable waterway uses. *What are the timeline, study area, and processes of this PARS?* The Coast Guard Office of Waterways Management (CG-541) will conduct this PARS. The study will begin immediately and must be completed by December 2007 in order for us to prepare and submit documents, if deemed appropriate, to the IMO in accordance with IMO's required submission dates. We will study the area bounded to the west by a line drawn at longitude 070° W; bounded to the north by a line drawn at latitude 43°00′ N; bounded to the east by the boundary of the exclusive economic zone; and bounded to the south by a line drawn at latitude 40° 30′ N. This area includes the northern right whale critical habitat, mandatory ship reporting system area, and the Great South Channel including Georges Bank out to the exclusive economic zone

(EEZ)boundary. As part of this study, we will consider previous studies, analyses of vessel traffic density, right whale information and agency and stakeholder experience in and public comments on vessel traffic management, navigation, ship handling, and effects of weather. We encourage you to participate in the study process by submitting comments in response to this notice. We will publish the results of the PARS in the **Federal Register** and provide a copy to NMFS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). In the study, we might— 1. Recommend creating new vessel routing measures; 2. Validate existing vessel routing measures, if any, and conclude that no changes are necessary; or 3. Recommend changes be made to existing vessel routing measures, if any, in order to reduce the threat of ship strikes of right whales. The recommendations will inform Coast Guard and NOAA decision makers and may lead to appropriate international actions. Possible Scope of the Recommendations We expect that information gathered during the study will help us identify any problems with vessel operations in right whale habitat areas and make conclusions about appropriate solutions. As a result of the study, we might decide that, in the study area, all or some of the following steps should be taken: 1. Maintain current vessel routing measures, if any; 2. Designate recommended or mandatory routes; 3. Create one or more precautionary areas; 4. Create one or more inshore traffic zones; 5. Create deep-draft routes; 6. Establish area(s) to be avoided; 7. Establish, disestablish, or modify anchorage grounds; 8. Establish a Regulated Navigation Area

(RNA)with specific vessel operating requirements to ensure safe navigation near shallow water; or 9. Identify any other appropriate ships' routing measures to be used. Questions To help us conduct the port access route study, we request information that will help answer the following questions, although comments on other issues addressed in this notice are also welcome. In responding to a question, please explain your reasons for each answer and follow the instructions under “Public Participation and Request for Comments” above. 1. What navigational hazards do vessels operating in the study area face? Please describe. 2. Are there strains on the current vessel routing system, such as increasing traffic density? Please describe. 3. What are the benefits and drawbacks to modifying existing vessel routing measures, if any, or establishing new routing measures? Please describe. 4. What impacts, both positive and negative, would changes to existing routing measures, if any, or new routing measures, have on the study area? Dated: November 6, 2007. F.J. Sturm, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Prevention Policy. [FR Doc. E7-22557 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1013; FRL-8496-8] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern rule rescissions that address particulate matter

(PM)emissions from Storage, Handling & Transport of Petroleum Coke and from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations. We are proposing to approve rule rescissions to update the California SIP under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by December 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1013, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail:* *steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses rule rescissions for the following local rules: AVAQMD Rule 1158, Storage, Handling, and Transport of Petroleum Coke and Rule 1186, PM-10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations. In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving these local rule rescissions in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: November 2, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-22449 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 45 CFR Parts 2510, 2513, 2516, 2517, 2520, 2521, 2522, 2523, 2524, 2540 and 2550 RIN 3045-AA23 AmeriCorps National Service Program AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter, “the Corporation”) proposes to amend several provisions relating to the AmeriCorps national service program. The proposed amendments are technical edits to clarify certain provisions and are offered in response to feedback the Corporation has received since its 2005 AmeriCorps rulemaking. DATES: To be sure your comments are considered, they must reach the Corporation on or before January 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may mail or deliver your comments to Amy Borgstrom, Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20525. You may also send your comments by facsimile transmission to

(202)606-3476, or send them electronically to *AmeriCorpsRulemaking@cns.gov* or through the Federal government's one-stop rulemaking Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Members of the public may review copies of all communications received on this rulemaking at the Corporation's Washington, DC headquarters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Borgstrom, Docket Manager, Corporation for National and Community Service,

(202)606-6930, TDD

(202)606-3472. Persons with visual impairments may request this rule in an alternate format. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Invitation to Comment We invite you to submit comments about these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum value in helping us develop the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each comment addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by contacting the Docket Manager listed in this notice. For more information about comments, please visit our Web site at *http://www.americorps.org/rulemaking* . Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . II. Background Under the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended (hereinafter “NCSA” or “the Act,” 42 U.S.C. 12501, *et seq.* ), the Corporation makes grants to support community service through the AmeriCorps program. In addition, the Corporation, through the National Service Trust, provides educational awards to and certain interest payments on behalf of AmeriCorps participants who successfully complete a term of service in an approved national service position. On May 20, 2003, the Corporation's Board of Directors (the Board) approved a report issued by the Board's Grant-making Task Force in which the Task Force recommended that the Corporation undertake efforts to streamline and improve our current grant-making processes. Among other actions, the Task Force recommended that the Corporation update the grant-making review and selection criteria, simplify the application process, evaluate the Corporation's grant requirements and assess whether requirements should and could be changed, and eliminate or streamline annual guidance. On February 27, 2004, President Bush issued Executive Order 13331 aimed at making the national and community service program better able to engage Americans in volunteering, more responsive to State and local needs, more accountable and effective, and more accessible to community organizations, including faith-based organizations. The Executive Order directed the Corporation to review and modify its policies as necessary to accomplish these goals. This rulemaking process is the second of two, originally initiated in 2004. The first rulemaking focused on sustainability and the limitation on the Federal share of program costs. The first rulemaking was completed in July, 2005 and became effective September, 2005. This rulemaking is intended chiefly to clarify several changes made in the first rulemaking, streamline and improve our current grant-making processes, strengthen accountability, and otherwise improve upon the operations of the AmeriCorps State and National program. III. Proposed Rule Definitions (§ 2510.20) The proposed rule amends the definition of the term participant to acknowledge the frequently used term *member* as synonymous. Prohibited Activities: Voter Registration (§ 2520.60) In 1994, the Corporation issued regulations in part 2520 regarding prohibited activities for AmeriCorps members. In 2002, the Corporation strengthened the list of prohibited activities by adding items from sub-regulatory grant provisions. At that time, the Corporation inadvertently omitted the sub-regulatory prohibition on AmeriCorps members engaging in voter registration drives in rulemaking. Our proposed rule adds this longstanding prohibition to regulation. Participant Evaluations (§ 2522.220) The Corporation's regulations require that grantees conduct an end-of-term evaluation for each AmeriCorps participant. The purpose of this evaluation is to answer two questions:

(1)Whether the participant is eligible to earn an education award; and

(2)whether the participant is eligible to serve a second or additional term of service. Whether a participant is eligible to earn an education award depends upon whether the participant completes the agreed-upon term of service. Under Section 146 of the Act, a participant is only eligible to earn an education award if the participant completed a term of service or was released for compelling personal circumstances as described in Section 139. According to Section 138 of the Act, whether a participant is eligible to serve a second term of service depends upon whether the participant served “satisfactorily” in the first term of service. The Act directs the Corporation to issue regulations on the manner and criteria for determining whether a participant's service was satisfactory. Presently, the Corporation's regulations state that, in assessing whether a participant's performance was satisfactory, the program must assess, among other things, whether the participant completed the required number of hours for the term of service and whether the participant satisfactorily completed assignments, tasks, and projects. The Corporation did not intend to suggest that completion of service hours should be a factor in determining whether a participant served satisfactorily. The Corporation has long considered that those participants who are released for compelling personal circumstances may be eligible to serve a second term of service in an AmeriCorps program. Likewise, the Corporation has issued guidance in the annual AmeriCorps Grant Provisions that those participants who are released for cause, but who performed satisfactorily for the time they served, may also be eligible to serve a second term of service. The completion of service hours signifies whether the participant can earn an education award, not whether the participant served satisfactorily. Our proposed rule amends the Corporation's regulations to clarify that those participants who are released for compelling personal circumstances, or who are released for cause but who receive a satisfactory performance review, may be eligible to serve a second term of service in AmeriCorps. To make this clear, in the proposed rule we have divided the end-of-term appraisal into two parts:

(1)A determination of whether the participant earned an education award; and

(2)a participant performance review to determined whether the participant served satisfactorily. The participant performance review has been amended in the proposed rule to incorporate those participants who are released early. The performance review will assess, in addition to any criteria developed by the program, whether the participant has satisfactorily completed assignments, tasks, or projects, or, for those participants released from service early, whether the participant satisfactorily completed those assignments, tasks, or projects that the participant could reasonably have completed in the time the participant served. For those participants who are released for cause, the reason for the release should be taken into account in determining whether the participant's term of service was satisfactory. A grantee should not conclude that a participant's term of service was satisfactory if the participant is released for cause unless the grantee determines that the reason for departure, while not within the regulatory criteria for compelling personal circumstances, is reasonable. For example, a participant who quits in order to go on vacation, or is released for bad behavior, should not be considered to have served satisfactorily regardless of how impressive the participant's service was up to that point. Notably, individuals who were released for cause from the first term of service are required under our regulations to disclose this fact on any subsequent application for service with an AmeriCorps program. Consequently, the Corporation anticipates that programs will consider the facts surrounding the prior release when determining whether to select the individual for service. The proposed rule would also change the language of the old rule so that the evaluation of the participant occurs “at the end” of the term of service, as opposed to “upon completion” of the term. By changing the language from “completion” to “end,” the Corporation intends that programs should evaluate all members, even those who do not technically complete the originally agreed-upon number of service hours. Our current regulations require programs to conduct end-of-term and mid-term evaluations on AmeriCorps participants. Due to the fact that participants occasionally leave service early, either for cause or for compelling personal circumstances, the Corporation has determined that it is not always practicable or possible for a program to perform an official review of a participant's performance in the middle of the term. Our proposed rule would remove the requirement that programs conduct mid-term evaluations for those participants who leave AmeriCorps service early. The Corporation also wishes to clarify its intent with regard to the documentation of mid-term evaluations. We require programs to engage in mid-term evaluations, but have not provided guidance as to the structure or content of these reviews. We expect programs to tailor mid-term evaluations to fit the particular needs of the individual program. Likewise, while we require that a program document that a mid-term evaluation occurred, there is no specific required format for this documentation. Rather, the grantee shall maintain documentation for each member that it has determined to be helpful to the program in conducting the end-of-term evaluation, whether that be a rating system, a narrative, notes from the evaluation interview, or other documentation. Living Allowance Disbursement (§ 2522.245) The Corporation is in the process of revising the AmeriCorps grant provisions and moving requirements with program-wide applicability to regulation or to the terms and conditions incorporated into individual grants. In the proposed rule, the requirement about how living allowances are to be treated and disbursed has been relocated from the grant provisions to regulation. There is no new requirement for how living allowances must be disbursed; only the location of the requirement has changed. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that living allowances are distributed in a manner that fulfills their purpose. AmeriCorps participants are not employees of the programs with which they serve and the living allowance is not considered an hourly wage. Rather, the living allowance is intended to be a means to support participants' basic costs of living to ensure they are able to secure food, clothing, and shelter while performing national service. For this reason, it is important that programs not treat the living allowance as a wage, and not adjust the distribution of the living allowance based on the number of hours a participant serves during a given period of time. For example, a participant that serves for 50 hours one week and 25 the next should receive the same living allowance as if the participant had served 50 hours (or 25 hours) in both weeks. Generally, the living allowance must not increase or decrease but should remain steady just as a participant's living expenses are continuous. However, because the living allowance is intended to support a participant's cost of living, if the cost of food, housing, transportation, or other necessities in a particular area increases, the program may adjust the living allowance disbursement accordingly within the overall approved grant amount. Just as the amount of the living allowance should not fluctuate, the frequency of distribution of the living allowance should be steady and reliable. Programs must provide living allowances at regular intervals, such as weekly or bi-weekly, so that a participant can have regular access to financial support. The proposed rule would also codify the existing prohibition on the payment of “lump sums” to participants who complete their terms of service in shorter periods of time than originally anticipated. If a participant starts service later than other participants, the program may not pay the participant an additional sum to “make up” payments missed before the participant began. Likewise, if a participant completes the term of service ahead of schedule, the program may not pay the participant a lump sum equivalent to what the participant would have received. Waiver of Living Allowance by a Participant (§ 2522.240(b)(5)) The Corporation's grant provisions have long provided that an AmeriCorps participant may waive all or part of the living allowance. Our proposed rule would add this provision to regulation. A participant who waives the living allowance may revoke the waiver at any time and may begin receiving a living allowance again prospective to that date. The participant may not receive any part of the living allowance attributable to the time period during which the living allowance was waived. Applications for the Same Project (§ 2522.320) Section 130(g) of the Act states that “the Corporation shall reject an application submitted under this section if a project proposed to be conducted using assistance requested by the applicant is already described in another application pending before the Corporation.” The Corporation's existing regulations state that “the Corporation will reject an application for a project if an application for funding or educational awards for the same project is already pending before the Corporation.” 45 CFR 2522.320. Our proposed rule would permit applicants to submit applications for the same project in separate, but overlapping, competitions, but only under specific conditions designed to prevent the project from receiving funding from two different sources. The proposed rule is intended to maximize the quality of programs in the AmeriCorps*State and National portfolio by giving applicants greater flexibility and autonomy in applying for the grant program best suited for their particular projects, while avoiding the same project receiving funding from two grants. To ensure compliance, the proposed rule requires an applicant that submits multiple applications to the Corporation to identify any other pending application for the same project. By submitting multiple applications for the same project under this proposed rule, the applicant will be on notice that approval of one by the Corporation will be deemed a withdrawal by the applicant of any additional application for the same project. To clarify the definition of “same project,” the proposed rule lists criteria by which we will determine whether proposed activities and identifying characteristics constitute the same or different projects. The Corporation may determine that two or more projects are sufficiently different based upon clear distinctions in one or more of the criteria considered. However, the criteria in the proposed rule are not exhaustive, as the Corporation may consider additional factors in determining a project's specific, identifiable activities. For the purposes of determining whether two applications cover the same project, geographic location will be identified as narrowly as possible in order to specify the population served. For example, the operation of a homeless shelter in Brooklyn might—depending on the proposed activities and identifying characteristics—be considered a different project than the operation of a homeless shelter in the Bronx. Performance Measures (§ 2522.620) The Corporation proposes to remove the requirement that grantees report on end outcomes at the end of year three of each program. Grantees will continue to be required to submit at least one aligned set of performance measures in their applications. These aligned measures must include at least one output, an intermediate outcome, and an end outcome. Grantees will continue to be required to measure, analyze and report upon the outputs and the intermediate outcome. Under the proposal, however, the Corporation's national evaluation strategy will focus on measuring end outcomes. We are convinced that there is significant value in grantees articulating an end outcome for at least one performance measure, as it provides a valuable long-term context for their work. However, we do not believe it is a prudent investment of federal funds to support their measurement of these end outcomes, which often will not become evident until more than three years after the initial investment. Therefore, we are proposing to relieve grantees of the requirement to report end outcomes. Civil Rights (§§ 2540.210 and 2540.215) The Corporation requires all recipients of Corporation grants to abide by applicable federal non-discrimination laws, including relevant provisions of the national service legislation and implementing regulations. It is essential that all participants, staff, and beneficiaries of programs supported by Corporation grants are aware of their rights under these laws and of the availability of the Corporation's impartial discrimination complaint process. Previously, the Corporation's civil rights notification requirements were included in the annual grant provisions. The proposed rule will relocate these requirements to regulation. There is no change in the requirements, only in the location of the requirements. The proposed rule requires grantees to notify participants, staff, and beneficiaries of the civil rights requirements and complaint procedures by including this information in recruitment materials, member contracts, handbooks, manuals, pamphlets, and by posting it in conspicuous locations, as appropriate. Grantees should ensure that this information is accessible to those participants, staff, and beneficiaries who have limited English proficiency, or who are hearing or visually impaired by providing it in alternative formats when necessary. Grantees may obtain sample notification language and other guidance on notification, the Corporation's discrimination complaint procedure, and other general information on prohibited discrimination by contacting the Office of Civil Rights and Inclusiveness, Corporation for National and Community Service, 1201 New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20525, by e-mail at *eo@cns.gov,* or by calling

(202)606-7503,

(202)606-3472 (TTY). Use of National Service Insignia (§§ 2540.500-560) Currently, grant recipients and other entities engaged in providing national and community services in cooperation with the Corporation are approved to use the national service insignia in accordance with the terms and conditions of their agreements with the Corporation. The Corporation anticipates continuing to administer approvals to use the national insignia in this manner. From time to time, however, the Corporation's insignia, including the AmeriCorps logo and other logos associated with the Corporation's programs, have been used without authorization, including by individuals and entities that have no relationship with the Corporation. In some cases, the unauthorized use was for commercial purposes and other purposes that would not have been approved by the Corporation. To better protect the image and integrity of the Corporation's programs, ensure compliance with government-wide rules against improper endorsement of non-Federal entities, and protect the public from possible deception, a new subpart E is proposed to be added to part 2540 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed regulation would provide notice regarding the restrictions on using the Corporation's various insignia and of the possible civil and criminal penalties that may incur for unauthorized use of the insignia. Depending upon the nature of the violation, under section 425 of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 5065) and 18 U.S.C. 506, 701, and 1017, enforcement of the restriction could result in an injunction on the unauthorized use, a monetary fine, or imprisonment. Disqualification and Forfeiture Based on False or Misleading Statements (§§ 2540.600-670) The Corporation proposes to add a new subpart F to part 2540 to address individuals who are admitted to a program or who receive program benefits on the basis of false or misleading statements. Occasionally, a member, volunteer, or participant in a Corporation-funded program is discovered to have been admitted to the program or accorded a benefit from the program on the basis of false or misleading statements. The proposed regulation provides a means for the Corporation to revoke the eligibility of a person for participation in or a benefit from a national service program if the person was admitted to a program or seeks a benefit from a program on the basis of a false or misleading statement which includes material omissions or false facts that, if known at the time of application or submission of a claim, would have resulted in a finding of ineligibility. In most cases the criteria for qualification to participate in a program or eligibility for a program benefit are set out in the NCSA and DVSA, or related appropriations acts. If it is discovered that facts material to qualification to participate or eligibility for a benefit were false or misleading, the Corporation has an obligation to revoke the person's eligibility and refrain from providing a related benefit to that person. Additionally, the Corporation may be legally obligated to recover funds from the person if funds were received on the basis of a false or misleading statement. The proposed regulation gives individuals suspected of making false or misleading statements the opportunity to respond under a two-tier review process before their eligibility is revoked. Where there are genuine material facts in dispute, a telephonic or face-to-face meeting may be included at the second level of review. The intent of the regulation is to provide a mechanism for revoking the eligibility of individuals who make a false or materially misleading statement in connection with their application to or enrollment in a national service program and for forfeiting eligibility for a related benefit. The action and procedures set out in the proposed regulation are intended to supplement, not replace, remedies against offending parties that are available under other laws. Depending upon the nature and scope of a false statement or misleading statement, other legal action may be taken against the offending party under the False Claims Act, Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Suspension and Debarment regulations under 45 CFR part 2542, and other applicable laws and regulations. Inspector General Access to Grantee Records (§ 2541.420) Section 2541.420(e)(1) is amended to specifically add the Inspector General among the authorities having access to pertinent grantee records. While it has always been understood that the Office of the Inspector General is a component of the awarding agency, the rule is being amended to match the access to records language in § 2543.53, which specifically names the Inspector General among the authorities having access to grantee records. State Commission Composition Requirements (§ 2550.50) Section 178(d)(1) of the Act states that “the Chief Executive Officer of a State shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the membership for the State commission for the State is diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, age, gender, and disability characteristics. Not more than 50 percent of the voting members, plus one additional member, may be from the same political party.” Section 178(c)(5) of the Act states that “[t]he number of voting members of a State commission * * * who are officers or employees of the State may not exceed 25 percent * * * of the total membership of the State commission.” Our proposed amendment to 45 CFR 2550.50 conforms the regulation to the specific language in the statute, including a clarification that the political affiliation provision applies only to voting members of the State commission. State Plans (§ 2550) Section 178(e) of the Act requires a State Commission to prepare and annually update a national service plan covering a three-year period. This Plan, previously referred to as a “Unified State Plan,” a “State Service Plan,” and, presently, a “State Plan,” is a document that sets forth the State's goals, priorities, and strategies for promoting national and community service. The Act specifies several components that must be present in the Plan, including the State's efforts to convene, collaborate, or otherwise coordinate with diverse national and community service groups and agencies to accomplish the State's national and community service goals. The Act gives latitude to the Corporation to establish additional requirements for the contents of the State Plan. Over time, we have found that the State's submission of certain information is mutually beneficial. For example, to enhance communication and coordination between the Corporation and the State, it is useful for us to know how the State is utilizing statewide networks of national and community service groups to achieve its goals and priorities. In addition, the availability of such information serves as a resource for identifying best practices to be shared with other States. By including these elements with the description of a State Commission's duties we eliminated the need to publish state plan requirements as a separate part; therefore, we have stricken part 2513. Section 2550.80 lists the duties of State entities. Our proposed rule conforms paragraph

(a)of this section to the statutory list of the responsibilities of State entities with regard to preparation of a State Plan. In addition, our proposed rule amends this section to include the requirement, previously located in part 2513, that the State Plan incorporate the State's “goals, priorities, and strategies for promoting national and community service and strengthening its service infrastructure, including how Corporation-funded programs fit into the plan.” This groups together relevant information and consolidates the regulatory required components of the State Plans. Our proposed rule imposes no new requirements for the contents of the State Plan, while reserving the Corporation's right to request submission of the State Plan in its entirety, in summary, or in part. The Corporation uses State Plans principally in understanding the State's national and community service goals, priorities, and strategies, not in making future funding or monitoring determinations, risk-based assessments, or State Standards process evaluations. Summary of Redesignations The proposed rule will change the location of a number of regulations. The following table is a guide to the current location of a provision and its new location under the proposed rule. Current location Proposed location 2520.65(a)(9) 2520.65(a)(10). 2522.240(b)(5) 2522.240(b)(6). 2550.80(a)(3) 2550(a)(4). IV. Effective Dates The Corporation intends to make any final rule based on this proposal effective no sooner than 30 days after the final rule is published in the **Federal Register** . We will include an implementation schedule in the final rule, based on the final rule's date of publication. V. Significant Non-Regulatory Issues The Corporation would like to use this opportunity to notify grantees and other interested parties of certain non-regulatory changes. Timeframe for Requesting AmeriCorps*State Formula Allocations Section 129(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12581(a)) requires the Corporation to allocate one-third of its AmeriCorps grants appropriation to the States using a population-based formula. If a State does not request its full formula allocation, the Act directs the Corporation to make a reallotment of unrequested funds to other States and Indian tribes. To date, we have permitted a State to request less than its full formula allocation in the first year, and access the balance of its allocation in the second year. Many States took advantage of this flexibility and requested their remaining allocation during the second year of availability. About two-thirds of the States do not request all of the formula funds made available to them in the first fiscal year. The specific States that do not request all of their funds vary from year to year, depending on the number of applications each state receives, the Corporation's maximum cost per member and whether there is a cap placed on member enrollment in the National Service Trust. Beginning in FY 2008, the deadline for submission of the state's formula will be much earlier. Any unrequested funds remaining after the deadline will be reallocated to small states whose initial allocations are less than $500,000 and for other authorized purposes, as appropriate. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Corporation has determined that the regulatory action will not result in

(1)An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

(2)a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or

(3)significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, the Corporation has not performed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) for major rules that are expected to have such results. Other Impact Analyses Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, information collection requirements which must be imposed as a result of this regulation have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB nos. 3045-0047, 3045-0117, and 3045-0099. For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures in either Federal, State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector. List of Subjects 45 CFR Part 2510 Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers. 45 CFR Part 2513 Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volunteers. 45 CFR Part 2516 Grants administration, Grant programs—social programs. 45 CFR Part 2517 Grants administration, Grant programs—social programs. 45 CFR Part 2520 Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers. 45 CFR Part 2521 Grants administration, Grant programs—social programs. 45 CFR Part 2522 Grants administration, Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers. 45 CFR Part 2523 Grant programs—social programs. 45 CFR Part 2524 Grant programs—social programs, Technical assistance. 45 CFR Part 2540 Civil rights, Fraud, Grants administration, Grant programs—social programs, Trademarks—signs and symbols, Trust, Volunteers. 45 CFR Part 2541 Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Investigations. 45 CFR Part 2550 Grants administration, Grant programs—social programs. For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority 42 U.S.C. 12651d, the Corporation for National and Community Service proposes to amend chapter XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 2510—OVERALL PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS 1. The authority citation for part 2510 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12501, *et seq.* 2. Amend § 2510.20 by adding a new paragraph

(3)to the definition of “participant” to read as follows: § 2510.20 Definitions. *Participant.* * * *

(3)A participant may also be referred to by the term *member* . PART 2513—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] 3. Remove and reserve part 2513. PART 2516—SCHOOL-BASED SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS 4. The authority citation for part 2516 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12521-12551. § 2516.400 [Amended] 5. Amend § 2516.400 by removing the reference “part 2513” and replacing it with “§ 2550.80(a).” § 2516.410 [Amended] 6. Amend § 2516.410 (a)(1) by removing the reference “part 2513” and replacing it with “§ 2550.80(a).” § 2516.500 [Amended] 7. Amend § 2516.500 (a)(3)(i) by removing the reference “part 2513” and replacing it with “§ 2550.80(a).” PART 2517—COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS 8. The authority citation for part 2517 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12541-12547. § 2517.400 [Amended] 9. Amend § 2517.400 (a)(3) by removing the reference “part 2513” and replacing it with “§ 2550.80(a).” § 2517.500 [Amended] 10. Amend § 2517.500 (c)(3) by removing the reference to “part 2513” and replacing it with “§ 2550.80(a).” PART 2520—GENERAL PROVISIONS: AMERICORPS SUBTITLE C PROGRAMS 11. The authority citation for part 2520 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595. 12. Amend § 2520.65 by redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as (a)(10) and adding a new paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows: § 2520.60 What activities are prohibited in AmeriCorps subtitle C programs?

(a)* * *

(9)Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive; PART 2521—ELIGIBLE AMERICORPS SUBTITLE C PROGRAM APPLICANTS AND TYPES OF GRANTS AVAILABLE FOR AWARD 13. The authority citation for part 2521 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595. 14. In § 2521.30, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: § 2521.30 How will AmeriCorps subtitle C program grants be awarded?

(a)* * *

(4)In making subgrants with funds awarded by formula or competition under paragraphs (a)(2) or

(3)of this section, a State must ensure that a minimum of 50 percent of funds going to States will be used for programs that operate in the areas of need or on Federal or other public lands, and that place a priority on recruiting participants who are residents in high need areas, or on Federal or other public lands. The Corporation may waive this requirement for an individual State if at least 50 percent of the total amount of assistance to all States will be used for such programs. PART 2522—AMERICORPS PARTICIPANTS, PROGRAMS, AND APPLICANTS 15. The authority citation for part 2522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595. 16. Amend § 2522.220 by: a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a); and b. Revising paragraph (d). The revisions will read as follows: § 2522.220 What are the required terms of service for AmeriCorps participants, and may they serve more than one term?

(a)*Term of Service* . A term of service may be defined as:

(d)*Participant performance review* . For the purposes of determining a participant's eligibility for an educational award as described in § 2522.240(a) and eligibility to serve a second or additional term of service as described in paragraph

(c)of this section, each AmeriCorps grantee is responsible for conducting a mid-term and end-of-term performance evaluation. A mid-term performance evaluation is not required for a participant who is released early from completing a term of service. The end-of-term performance evaluation should consist of:

(1)A determination of whether the participant:

(i)Completed the required number of hours described in paragraph

(a)of this section, making the participant eligible for an educational award as described in § 2522.240(a);

(ii)Was released from service for compelling personal circumstances, making the participant eligible for a pro-rated educational award as described in § 2522.230(a)(2); or

(iii)Was released from service for cause, making the participant ineligible to receive an educational award for that term of service as described in § 2522.230(b)(3); and

(2)A participant performance review which will assess whether the participant:

(i)Has satisfactorily completed assignments, tasks, or projects, or, for those participants released from service early, whether the participant satisfactorily completed those assignments, tasks, or projects that the participant could reasonably have completed in the time the participant served; and

(ii)Has met any other performance criteria which had been clearly communicated both orally and in writing at the beginning of the term of service. 17. Amend § 2522.230 by adding a new paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows: § 2522.230 Under what circumstances may AmeriCorps participants be released from completing a term of service, and what are the consequences?

(b)* * *

(6)An individual's eligibility for a second term of service in AmeriCorps will not be affected by release for cause from a prior term of service so long as the individual received a satisfactory end-of-term performance review as described in § 2522.240(d)(2) for the period served in the first term. 18. Amend § 2522.240 by: a. Revising the heading of paragraph (b)(4); b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(6); and c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(5). The revisions and additions will read as follows: § 2522.240 What financial benefits do AmeriCorps participants serving in approved AmeriCorps positions receive?

(b)* * *

(4)*Waiver or reduction of living allowance for programs* . * * *

(5)*Waiver or reduction of living allowance by participants* . A participant may waive all or part of the receipt of a living allowance. The participant may revoke this waiver at any time during the participant's term of service. If the participant revokes the living allowance waiver, the participant may begin receiving his or her living allowance prospective to the date of the revocation; a participant may not receive any portion of the living allowance that may have accrued during the waiver period. 19. Add a new § 2522.245 to read as follows: § 2522.245 How are living allowances disbursed? A living allowance is not a wage and programs may not pay living allowances on an hourly basis. Programs must distribute the living allowance at regular intervals and in regular increments, and may increase living allowance payments only on the basis of increased living expenses such as food, housing, or transportation. Living allowance payments may only be made to a participant during the participant's term of service and must cease when the participant concludes the term of service. Programs may not provide a lump sum payment to a participant who completes the originally agreed-upon term of service in a shorter period of time. 20. Revise § 2522.320 to read as follows: § 2522.320 Under what conditions may I submit more than one application for the same project? You may submit more than one application for the same project only if:

(a)You submit the applications in separate competitions (i.e., National Direct, State, Education Award Program); and

(b)You disclose in each application that there is another application for the same project pending before the Corporation. 21. Add new §§ 2522.330 and 2522.340 to subpart C to read as follows: § 2522.330 What happens to additional applications for the same project if the Corporation approves one application? If the Corporation approves one application for a project, you will be deemed to have withdrawn any other application (or part thereof) for the same project. § 2522.340 How will I know if two projects are the same? In determining whether two projects are the same, the Corporation will consider, among other characteristics:

(a)The objectives and priorities of the project;

(b)The nature of the service provided;

(c)The program staff, participants, and volunteers involved;

(d)The geographic location in which the service is provided;

(e)The population served; and

(f)The proposed community partnerships. 22. Amend § 2522.620 by revising paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 2522.620 How do I report my performance measures to the Corporation?

(c)At a minimum you are required to report on outputs at the end of year one and outputs and intermediate outcomes at the end of years two and three. We encourage you to exceed these minimum requirements. PART 2523—AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR THE PROVISION OF AMERICORPS PROGRAM ASSISTANCE 23. The authority citation for part 2523 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595. 24. Amend § 2523.90 by removing the reference “§ 2522.240(b)(5)” and replacing it with “§ 2522.240(b)(6).” PART 2524—AMERICORPS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SPECIAL GRANTS 25. The authority citation for part 2524 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595. § 2524.30 [Amended] 26. Amend § 2524.30 (b)(4) by removing the reference “2522.240(b)(5)” and replacing it with “2522.240(b)(6).” PART 2540—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 27. The authority citation for part 2540 is revised to read as follows: Authority: E.O. 13331, 69 FR 9911; 18 U.S.C. 506, 701, 1017; 42 U.S.C. 12653; 42 U.S.C. 5065. 28. Amend § 2540.210 by adding a new paragraph

(d)to read as follows: § 2540.210 What provisions exist to ensure that Corporation-supported programs do not discriminate in the selection of participants and staff?

(d)Grantees must notify all program participants, staff, applicants, and beneficiaries of:

(1)Their rights under applicable federal nondiscrimination laws, including relevant provisions of the national service legislation and implementing regulations; and

(2)The procedure for filing a discrimination complaint with the Corporation's Office of Civil Rights and Inclusiveness. 29. Add a new § 2540.215 to read as follows: § 2540.215 What should a program participant, staff members, or beneficiary do if the individual believes he or she has been subject to illegal discrimination? A program participant, staff member, or beneficiary who believes that he or she has been subject to illegal discrimination should contact the Corporation's Office of Civil Rights and Inclusiveness, which offers an impartial discrimination complaint resolution process. Participation in a discrimination complaint resolution process is protected activity; a grantee is prohibited from retaliating against an individual for making a complaint or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing. 30. Add a new Subpart E (consisting of §§ 2540.500 through 2540.560) to read as follows: Subpart E—Restrictions on Use of National Service Insignia Sec. 2540.500 What definition applies to this subpart? 2540.510 What are the restrictions on using national service insignia? 2540.520 What are the consequences for unauthorized use of the Corporation's national service insignia? 2540.530 Are there instances where an insignia may be used without getting the approval of the Corporation? 2540.540 Who has authority to approve use of national service insignia? 2540.550 Is there an expiration date on approvals for use of national service insignia? 2540.560 How do I renew authority to use a national service insignia? Subpart E—Restrictions on Use of National Service Insignia § 2540.500 What definition applies to this subpart? *National Service Insignia.* For this subpart, *national service insignia* means the former and current seal, logos, names, or symbols of the Corporation's programs, products, or services, including those for AmeriCorps, VISTA, Learn and Serve America, Senior Corps, Foster Grandparents, the Senior Companion Program, the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, the National Civilian Community Corps, and any other program or project that the Corporation administers. § 2540.510 What are the restrictions on using national service insignia? The national service insignia are owned by the Corporation and only may be used as authorized. The national service insignia may not be used by non-federal entities for fundraising purposes or in a manner that suggests Corporation endorsement. § 2540.520 What are the consequences for unauthorized use of the Corporation's national service insignia? Any person who uses the national service insignia without authorization may be subject to legal action for trademark infringement, enjoined from continued use, and, for certain types of unauthorized uses, other civil or criminal penalties may apply. § 2540.530 Are there instances where an insignia may be used without getting the approval of the Corporation? All uses of the national service insignia require the written approval of the Corporation. § 2540.540 Who has authority to approve use of national service insignia? Approval for limited uses may be provided through the terms of a written grant or other agreement. All other uses must be approved in writing by the director of the Corporation's Office of Public Affairs, or his or her designee. § 2540.550 Is there an expiration date on approvals for use of national service insignia? The approval to use a national service insignia will expire as determined in writing by the director of the Office of Public Affairs, or his or her designee. However, the authority to use an insignia may be revoked at any time if the Corporation determines that the use involved is injurious to the image of the Corporation or if there is a failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the authorization. § 2540.560 How do I renew authority to use a national service insignia? Requests for renewed authority to use an insignia must follow the procedures for initial approval as set out in § 2540.540. 31. Add a new Subpart F (consisting of §§ 2540.600 through 2540.670) to read as follows: Subpart F—False or Misleading Statements Sec. 2540.600 What definitions apply to this subpart? 2540.610 What are the consequences of making a false or misleading statement? 2540.620 What are my rights if the Corporation determines that I have made a false or misleading statement? 2540.630 What information must I provide to contest a proposed action? 2540.640 When will the reviewing official make a decision on the proposed action? 2540.650 How may I contest a reviewing official's decision to uphold the proposed action? 2540.660 If the final decision determines that I received a financial benefit improperly, will I be required to repay that benefit? 2540.670 Will my qualification to participate or eligibility for benefits be suspended during the review process? Subpart F—False or Misleading Statements § 2540.600 What definitions apply to this subpart? *You.* For this subpart, *you* refers to a participant in a national service program. § 2540.610 What are the consequences of making a false or misleading statement? If it is determined that you made a false or misleading statement in connection with your eligibility for a benefit from, or qualification to participate in, a Corporation-funded program, it may result in the revocation of the qualification or forfeiture of the benefit. Revocation and forfeiture under this part is in addition to any other remedy available to the Federal Government under the law against persons who make false or misleading statements in connection with a federally-funded program. § 2540.620 What are my rights if the Corporation determines that I have made a false or misleading statement? If the Corporation determines that you have made a false or misleading statement in connection with your eligibility for a benefit from, or qualification to participate in, a Corporation-funded program, you will be hand delivered a written notice, or sent a written notice to your last known street address or e-mail address or that of your identified counsel at least 15 days before any proposed action is taken. The notice will include the facts surrounding the determination and the action the Corporation proposes to take. The notice will also identify the reviewing official in your case and provide other pertinent information. You will be allowed to show good cause as to why forfeiture, revocation, the denial of a benefit, or other action should not be implemented. You will be given 10 calendar days to submit written materials in opposition to the proposed action. § 2540.630 What information must I provide to contest a proposed action? Your written response must include specific facts that contradict the statements made in the notice of proposed action. A general statement of denial is insufficient to raise a dispute over the facts material to the proposed action. Your response should also include copies of any documents that support your argument. § 2540.640 When will the reviewing official make a decision on the proposed action? The reviewing official will issue a decision within 45 days of receipt of your response. § 2540.650 How may I contest a reviewing official's decision to uphold the proposed action? If the Corporation's reviewing official concludes that the proposed action, in full or in part, should still be implemented, you will have an opportunity to request an additional proceeding. A Corporation program director or designee will conduct a review of the complete record, including such additional relevant documents you submit. If deemed appropriate, such as where there are material facts in genuine dispute, the program director or designee may conduct a telephonic or in person meeting. If a meeting is conducted, it will be recorded and you will be provided a copy of the recording. The program director or designee will issue a decision within 30 days of the conclusion of the review of the record or meeting. The decision of the program director or designee is final and cannot be appealed further within the agency. § 2540.660 If the final decision determines that I received a financial benefit improperly, will I be required to repay that benefit? If it is determined that you received a financial benefit improperly, you may be required to reimburse the program for that benefit. § 2540.670 Will my qualification to participate or eligibility for benefits be suspended during the review process? If the reviewing official determines that, based on the information available, there is a reasonable likelihood that you will be determined disqualified or ineligible, your qualification or eligibility may be suspended, pending issuance of a final decision, to protect the public interest. PART 2541—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 32. The authority citation for part 2541 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4950, *et seq.* and 12501, *et seq.* 33. Revise § 2541.420(e)(1) to read as follows: § 2541.420 Retention and access requirements for records.

(e)*Access to records* —(1) *Records of grantees and subgrantees.* The awarding agency, the Inspector General, and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their authorized representatives, shall have the right of access to any pertinent books, documents, papers, or other records of grantees and subgrantees which are pertinent to the grant, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. PART 2550—REQUIREMENTS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR STATE COMMISSIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ENTITIES 34. The authority citation for part 2550 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12638. 35. Amend § 2550.50 by revising paragraph

(e)to read as follows: § 2550.50 What are the composition requirements and other requirements, restrictions or guidelines for State Commissions?

(e)*Other composition requirements.* To the extent practicable, the chief executive officer of a State shall ensure that the membership for the State commission is diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, age, gender, and disability characteristics. Not more than 50 percent plus one of the voting members of a State commission may be from the same political party. In addition, the number of voting members of a State commission who are officers or employees of the State may not exceed 25% of the total membership of that State commission. 36. Amend § 2550.80 by revising paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 2550.80 What are the duties of the State entities?

(a)*Development of a three-year, comprehensive national and community service plan and establishment of State priorities.* The State entity must develop and annually update a Statewide plan for national service covering a three year period that is consistent with the Corporation's broad goals of meeting human, educational, environmental, and public safety needs and meets the following minimum requirements:

(1)The plan must be developed through an open and public process (such as through regional forums or hearings) that provides for the maximum participation and input from a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations, including national service programs within the State, community-based agencies, organizations with a demonstrated record of providing educational, public safety, human, or environmental services, residents of the State, including youth and other prospective participants, State Educational Agencies, traditional service organizations, labor unions, and other interested members of the public.

(2)The plan must ensure outreach to diverse, broad-based community organizations that serve underrepresented populations by creating State networks and registries or by utilizing existing ones.

(3)The plan must set forth the State's goals, priorities, and strategies for promoting national and community service and strengthening its service infrastructure, including how Corporation-funded programs fit into the plan.

(4)The plan may contain such other information as the State commission considers appropriate and must contain such other information as the Corporation may require.

(5)The plan must be submitted, in its entirety, in summary, or in part, to the Corporation upon request. 37. Add a new § 2550.85 to read as follows: § 2550.85 How will the State Plan be assessed? The Corporation will assess the quality of your State Plan as evidenced by:

(a)The development and quality of realistic goals and objectives for moving service ahead in the State;

(b)The extent to which proposed strategies can reasonably be expected to accomplish stated goals; and

(c)The extent of input in the development of the State plan from a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations as required by § 2550.80(a)(1). Dated: November 8, 2007. Frank R. Trinity, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-22298 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 25 [IB Docket No. 07-253; FCC 07-194] Satellite Ancillary Terrestrial Components AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Ancillary terrestrial components

(ATC)allow MSS operators to integrate terrestrial services into their satellite networks in order to augment coverage in areas where their satellite signals are largely unavailable due to blocking, by re-using their assigned MSS frequencies. In the Big LEO bands, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has limited ATC operations to the 1610-1615.5 MHz, 1621.35-1626.5 MHz in the L-band and 2487.5-2493 MHz in the S-band. The Commission seeks comment on expanding the L-band and S-band spectrum in which satellite operator Globalstar, Inc. is authorized to operate ATC. The Commission also seeks comment on what measures would be needed to protect services with which the Mobile-Satellite Service

(MSS)shares the S-band. DATES: Comments due on or before December 19, 2007 and reply comments due on or before January 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 07-253, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site:* *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-2530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Griboff, 202/418-0657. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ancillary terrestrial components

(ATC)allow MSS operators to integrate terrestrial services into their satellite networks in order to augment coverage in areas where their satellite signals are largely unavailable due to blocking, by re-using their assigned MSS frequencies. In 2003, the Commission adopted the ATC Order, permitting MSS licensees to seek authority to implement ATC to be integrated into MSS networks in MSS bands, including the Big LEO bands. In the Big LEO bands, the Commission limited ATC operations to the 1610-1615.5 MHz, 1621.35-1626.5 MHz and 2492.5-2498 MHz bands and to the specific frequencies authorized for use by the MSS licensee that seeks ATC authority. Subsequently the Commission shifted the S-band ATC block to 2487.5-2493 MHz, so that ATC and the fixed and mobile services allocation at 2495-2500 MHz would not overlap. The Commission seeks comment on expanding the L-band and S-band spectrum in which Globalstar is authorized to operate ATC. Such an increase in spectrum would allow Globalstar to offer a higher-capacity ATC than would be possible with its currently authorized 11 megahertz of ATC spectrum. The Commission tentatively concludes that ATC is not feasible in the L-band spectrum Globalstar shares with Iridium, at 1617.775-1618.725 MHz. The Commission also tentatively concludes that ATC cannot share spectrum with co-primary Fixed and Mobile services in the 2495-2500 MHz segment of the S-band, and seeks comment on what measures would be needed to protect services with which MSS shares the S-band. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25 Satellites. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22567 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE 48 CFR Parts 604, 637 and 652 [Public Notice: 5992] RIN 1400-AC32 Department of State Acquisition Regulation AGENCY: State Department. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule will add a contract clause to implement the requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) Number 201, Personal Identity Verification

(PIV)of Federal Employees and Contractors; and associated OMB guidance M-05-24 (August 5, 2005). DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to January 18, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods: • *E-mail:* *ginesgg@state.gov* You must include the RIN in the subject line of your message. • *Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions):* Gladys Gines, Procurement Analyst, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street, NW., Suite 603, State Annex Number 6, Washington, DC 20522-0602. • *Fax:* 703-875-6155. Persons with access to the Internet may also view this notice and provide comments by going to the regulations.gov Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gladys Gines, Procurement Analyst, Department of State, Office of the Procurement Executive, 2201 C Street, NW., Suite 603, State Annex Number 6, Washington, DC 20522-0602; e-mail address: *ginesgg@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 3, 2006, the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)was revised to implement the contractor personal identification requirements of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), and Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) Number 201, Personal Identity Verification

(PIV)of Federal Employees and Contractors. (See 71 FR 208, January 3, 2006). The FAR required compliance with FIPS PUB 201 and associated OMB guidance M-05-24 (August 5, 2005) for solicitations and contracts that require the contractor to have routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility and/or routine access to a Federally-controlled information system. However, it recognized that Federal agencies needed to customize these policies and procedures to meet mission needs. Therefore, the FAR did not provide specific procedural language for inclusion in affected contracts, but merely required that contractors “comply with agency personal identity verification procedures identified in the contract”. This proposed rule will add a new contract clause to the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to implement the Department's requirements regarding personal identity verification of contractor personnel. The clause will apply to contracts that require contractor employees to perform on-site at a Department of State location and/or that require contractor employees to have access to DOS information systems. The clause directs contractors to an Internet web site document that outlines the personal identity verification procedures for various types of contractors (cleared and uncleared), location of performance (domestic facilities; domestic—Washington, DC metro area facilities; and overseas facilities), and the access requirements (physical; logical; or both). Finally, DOSAR clause 652.237-71, Identification/Building Pass, and its associated prescription at 637.110(b), are removed. This clause outlined the process for issuing building passes to contractors working on-site at DOS facilities. HSPD-12 and FIPS PUB 201 require more stringent forms of identification to ensure personal identity verification than was reflected in this clause. Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act In accordance with provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act governing rules promulgated by federal agencies that affect the public (5 U.S.C. 552), the Department is publishing this proposed rule and inviting public comment. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets. Executive Order 12866 The Department of State does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order. Executive Order 13132 This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Paperwork Reduction Act Information collection requirements have been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 by OMB, and have been assigned OMB control number 1405-0050. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 604, 637 and 652 Government procurement. Accordingly, for reasons set forth in the preamble, title 48, chapter 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 604, 637 and 652 continue to read as follows: Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 22 U.S.C. 2658. Subchapter A—General PART 604—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2. A new subpart 604.13 is added as follows: Subpart 604.13—Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel Sec. 604.1300 Policy. 604.1301 Contract clause. 604.1301-70 DOSAR contract clause. Subpart 604.13—Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel 604.1300 Policy. The DOS official responsible for verifying contractor employee personal identity is the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security. 604.1301 Contract clause. 604.1301-70 DOSAR contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.204-70, Department of State Personal Identification Card Issuance Procedures, in solicitations and contracts that require contractor employees to perform on-site at a DOS location and/or that require contractor employees to have access to DOS information systems. Subchapter F—Special Categories of Contracting PART 637—SERVICE CONTRACTING 3. Section 637.110 is amended by removing paragraph

(b)and re-designating paragraphs

(c)and

(d)as paragraphs

(b)and (c), respectively. Subchapter H—Clauses and Forms PART 652—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. Section 652.204-70 is added as follows: 652.204-70 Department of State Personal Identification Card Issuance Procedures. As prescribed in 604.1301-70, insert the following clause: Department of State Personal Identification Card Issuance Procedures

(a)The Contractor shall comply with the Department of State

(DOS)Personal Identification Card Issuance Procedures for all employees performing under this contract who require frequent and continuing access to DOS facilities, or information systems. The Contractor shall insert this clause in all subcontracts when the subcontractor's employees will require frequent and continuing access to DOS facilities, or information systems.

(b)The DOS Personal Identification Card Issuance Procedures may be accessed at *http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rpt/c21664.htm.* (End of clause) 5. Section 652.237-71 is removed and reserved. 6. Section 652.237-72 is amended by removing “637.110(c)” and inserting “637.110(b)” in its place in the clause prescription. 7. Section 652.237-73 is amended by removing “637.110(d)” and inserting “637.110(c)” in its place in the clause prescription. Dated: November 7, 2007. Corey M. Rindner, Procurement Executive, Bureau of Administration, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-22460 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 21 RIN 1018-AV35 Migratory Bird Permits; Revisions to Migratory Bird Import and Export Regulations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose changes in the regulations governing migratory bird permitting. We propose to amend 50 CFR part 21 to resolve problems related to export of species covered by Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) permits or certificates; to allow the importation and possession without an import permit of legally acquired migratory game birds in the families Anatidae, Columbidae, Gruidae, Rallidae, or Scolopacidae that were lawfully hunted in a foreign country; to extend the period of time for which an Import and Export permit is valid from 3 to 5 years; and to reorganize and reword the regulations to make them easier to understand. DATES: Send comments on this proposal by February 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and viewing others' comments, please see “Public Participation” below. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1018-AV35, by any one of the following methods: • *E-mail:* *Import/Export@fws.gov* . Include RIN number 1018-AV35 in the subject line of the message; • *Fax:* 703-358-2217; • *Mail:* Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610; • *Hand Delivery:* Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, VA 22203-1610; or • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-1825. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency that has been delegated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA)(16 U.S.C. 703 *et seq.* ), which implements conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). Raptors (birds of prey) are afforded Federal protection by the 1972 amendment to the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals, February 7, 1936, United States-Mexico, as amended; the Convention between the United States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their Environment, September 19, 1974; and the Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia) Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment, November 26, 1976. Among other things, we manage the import and export of migratory birds and their parts, eggs, and nests. The regulations at 50 CFR 21.21 set forth the requirements for import and export permits for migratory birds and their parts, eggs, and nests. Currently at § 21.21, we set forth requirements for import and export permits, application procedures for these permits, additional permit conditions, and the term for which a permit is valid. These regulations are nearly 18 years old and are, in part, outdated. In particular, these regulations do not mention the requirements associated with CITES, addressed in part 23 of our regulations. In addition, many of the requirements currently set forth at § 21.21 simply reference another part or section of our regulations. They are therefore difficult to read and understand. We propose to update and revise the regulations at § 21.21 to, among other things: Address the export of species covered by CITES; allow the importation and possession of legally acquired migratory game birds in the families Anatidae, Columbidae, Gruidae, Rallidae, and Scolopacidae that were lawfully hunted in a foreign country; extend the period of time for which an Import and Export permit is valid from 3 to 5 years; and reorganize and reword the regulations to make them easier to understand. Specifically, we propose changes to § 21.21 as follows. *General requirements (proposed § 21.21(a)):* Current § 21.21(a) provides the general requirements for import and export permits, as well as the exceptions to these requirements. We would reorganize current § 21.21(a) to separate the general requirements (proposed § 21.21(a)) from the exceptions to the requirements (proposed § 21.21(b),

(c)and (d)). In proposed § 21.21(a), we would also acknowledge all of the regulations, including the CITES regulations at 50 CFR part 23, that apply to imports and exports of migratory birds and their parts, eggs, and nests. These proposed revisions would help ensure that importers and exporters of migratory birds or their parts, eggs, or nests understand all of the requirements applicable to their imports and exports. *Exceptions for import permits (proposed § 21.21(b)):* Current § 21.21(a)(1) provides the requirements for import permits; it does not provide any exceptions to import permit requirements for migratory birds or their parts, eggs, or nests. Current § 21.21(a)(2) does have one import permit exception for raptors for falconry that will be discussed later in this document. We would add, in a new § 21.21(b), a provision to allow the importation and possession without an import permit of legally hunted migratory game birds in the families Anatidae, Columbidae, Gruidae, Rallidae, and Scolopacidae that were lawfully hunted in a foreign country. The imported specimens could be carcasses, skins, or mounts and would have to be accompanied by evidence of lawful export from the country of origin. These families may be legally hunted under the provisions of the migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico, though hunting seasons have not been established for all of them. We wish to allow hunters to import birds in these families that they legally hunted outside the United States without requiring an import permit to do so. *Exceptions for export permits (proposed § 21.21(c)):* As stated above, current § 21.21(a) provides the requirements for import and export permits, and exceptions to these requirements. Current § 21.21(a) does provide exceptions to the export permit requirements for certain captive-bred migratory game birds exported to Canada or Mexico and for raptors used for falconry exported to or imported from Canada or Mexico. Our proposed § 21.21(c) would retain these exceptions, with certain changes. Instead of simply directing readers to 50 CFR 21.13(b) of the regulations for the marking requirements for captive-bred migratory game birds exported to Canada or Mexico, we would detail those requirements in this new paragraph. This proposed revision would help ensure that exporters of migratory game birds understand the exceptions to our export permit requirements. We would also move the provisions concerning the exception to the import and export permit requirements for raptors for falconry to their own paragraph in this section of the regulations. We believe that this change would help readers find this information in the regulations. In addition, we would add a provision to allow export of lawfully acquired captive-bred raptors, provided that the exporter holds both a valid raptor propagation permit and a CITES export permit, and has full documentation of the lawful origin of the raptor(s). The raptor(s) would also have to be properly identified by a captive-bred raptor band (see 21.30 of this Part). This change would eliminate redundant permitting reviews for export of captive-bred raptors and would help ensure that border inspectors can easily and accurately identify birds for export. *Exception for transport of falconry birds (proposed § 21.21(d)):* The exception to the import and export permit requirements for falconry birds currently resides in § 21.21(a)(2), with the general export permit requirements for migratory birds. We propose to put the exception to the requirements for falconry birds into its own paragraph (proposed new § 21.21(d)) so that it is easier to find in the regulations. For clarity, we would revise the language concerning the exception, and we would acknowledge the CITES regulations at 50 CFR part 23 that apply to exports of these birds. This proposed revision would help ensure that importers and exporters of falconry birds understand this exception to the transport requirements for falconry birds. We believe it is reasonable to allow temporary transport of birds held for falconry out of the United States. Therefore, a proposed provision in the regulation makes it clear that we allow this action. The provision states that unless you have the necessary CITES permit or certificate to permanently export a raptor from the United States, you must bring any raptor you transport out of the country for use in falconry back to the United States when you return. However, if the raptor dies or is lost, the permittee must document the loss of the bird as required by his or her State falconry regulations and any conditions on the CITES document. *Inspection procedures (proposed § 21.21(e)):* The current § 21.21 is silent on inspection procedures for imported and exported migratory birds and their parts, eggs, and nests, even though these inspections occur regularly. We propose to add a paragraph explaining that migratory birds imported into, or exported from, the United States, and any associated documentation, may be inspected by the Service or Customs and Border Protection. *Application procedures (proposed § 21.21(f)):* Current § 21.21(b) provides the application procedures for permits to import or export migratory birds or their parts, eggs, or nests. The current regulations set forth the information required on the application forms. The “additional information,” specified in current § 21.21(b)(1) through (b)(6), has been incorporated into the relevant application forms, so we are proposing to remove that information from the regulations. Instead, we propose to list the specific forms required to apply for an import or export permit (FWS form 3-200-6) or a permit for scientific collecting (FWS form 3-200-7). We also propose to add language reminding applicants of the application fee that must accompany their application to import or export migratory birds or their parts, eggs, or nests. This change would help ensure that persons interested in importing or exporting know which form to complete and its associated application fee. *Service criteria for issuing a permit (proposed § 21.21(g)):* The current § 21.21 is silent on the criteria we consider when deciding whether or not to issue a permit to import or export migratory birds or their parts, eggs, or nests. We propose to include the issuance criteria in this section to ensure that the public understands how we make our decisions. *Standard conditions for a permit (proposed § 21.21(h)):* The current § 21.21(c) provides information on additional permit conditions. We would retain this information, but rewrite it for clarity. We would also add a reference to 50 CFR part 14 to ensure that importers and exporters of migratory birds or their parts, eggs, or nests understand that they must also comply with the general regulations concerning the importation, exportation, and transportation of wildlife. *Term of permit (proposed § 21.21(i)):* The current § 21.21(d) provides information on the length of time that a permit is valid. We also propose to extend the period of time for which an import or export permit is valid from 3 to 5 years. In recent years, as we have completed regulations revisions we have extended the duration of some permit types that we believe have a limited potential effect on bird populations, to ease the burden on both permittees and our permits examiners. We believe that is also true of the import and export regulations, so we propose to extend the term of an Import and Export permit from 3 to 5 years. *Plain Language:* Throughout our proposed revisions to § 21.21, we have used short sentences and active voice to make the regulations easy to understand. Public Participation If you submit electronic comments, please include your name and return address in your message, and identify it as comments on RIN 1018-AV35 in the subject line of your message. If you submit hard copy comments, please include your name and return address in your letter and identify it as comments on RIN 1018-AV35. To facilitate compilation of the Administrative Record for this action, you must submit hard copy comments on 8 1/2 -inch by 11-inch paper. All comments on the proposed rule, including any personal information received, will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at Room 4091 at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203-1610. The supporting file for this proposed rule is available, by appointment, during normal business hours at the same address. You may call 703-358-1825 to make an appointment to view the file. Public Availability of Comments 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. We will not consider anonymous comments. Following review and consideration of comments, we will issue a final rule on the proposed regulation changes. Required Determinations Clarity of This Regulation Executive Order (E.O.) 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: “§ 21.21 Import and export permits.”)

(5)Does the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble help you to understand 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, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You also may e-mail comments to *Exsec@ios.doi.gov.* Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with the criteria in E.O. 12866, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget makes the final determination of significance under E.O. 12866. a. This proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy issues. The proposed provision is in compliance with other laws, policies, and regulations. b. This proposed rule would not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis thus is not required. There are no costs associated with this proposed rule. c. This proposed rule would not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. The proposed rule deals solely with governance of migratory bird permitting in the United States. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating activities with migratory birds. d. This proposed rule would not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs associated with the regulation of migratory birds. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have examined this proposed rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the changes we are proposing are intended primarily to simplify export for a limited number of raptor propagators. There would be no costs associated with this regulatory change. Consequently, we certify that because this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This proposed rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. a. This proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. b. This proposed rule would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. c. This proposed rule would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we have determined the following: a. This proposed rule would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions under the proposed regulation would not affect small government activities in any significant way. b. This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Takings In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications because it would not contain a provision for taking of private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism This proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It would not interfere with the States' ability to manage themselves or their funds. No significant economic impacts are expected to result from changing exemptions in migratory bird permit requirements. Civil Justice Reform In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act We examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not collect or sponsor, nor is a person required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. The Office of Management and Budget approved the information collection requirements for this part, and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0022. There are no new information collection requirements associated with this regulations change. National Environmental Policy Act We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 432-437(f), and Part 516 of the U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM). We have no date on the number of legally hunted birds that individuals might wish to import, though we doubt that the number will be large. Because these species are legally hunted elsewhere, we doubt that this proposed regulations change would appreciably change the impact of hunting on these species. Therefore, we do believe that there would be a significant environmental impact due to the proposed regulations change. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects. This proposed rule would not interfere with the Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on tribal lands. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211) On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule would affect only import and export of birds in limited circumstances, it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action The primary change we propose is to allow export of lawfully acquired captive-bred raptors provided that the exporter holds a valid raptor propagation permit and has been issued a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) export permit. This change should eliminate redundant permitting required for this activity. Another important change we propose is to allow the import of legally acquired migratory game birds without a permit. A permit is currently required to import such species. We believe that there are no significant environmental impacts of this action. *Socioeconomic.* This proposed rule would not have discernible socioeconomic impacts. *Migratory bird populations.* This proposed rule would not affect migratory bird populations. *Endangered and threatened species.* The proposed regulation is for migratory bird species that are not threatened or endangered. It would not affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitats. Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that “The Secretary [of the Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat” (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). The proposed regulations change will not affect listed species. Author The author of this rulemaking is Dr. George T. Allen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. Proposed Regulation Promulgation For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend part 21 of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows: Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Public Law 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public Law 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note following 16 U.S.C. 703. 2. Revise § 21.21 to read as follows: § 21.21 Import and export permits.

(a)*What is the permit requirement?* Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and

(d)of this section, you must have a permit to import or export migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs. You must meet the applicable permit requirements of parts 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, or 23 of this subchapter B, even if the activity is exempt from a migratory bird import or export permit.

(b)*What is the exception to the import permit requirements?* You do not need a migratory bird permit to import or possess migratory game birds in the families Anatidae, Columbidae, Gruidae, Rallidae, and Scolopacidae for personal use that were lawfully hunted by you in a foreign country if you comply with the requirements of part 20 of this subchapter B (Migratory Bird Hunting). The game birds may be carcasses, skins, or mounts. You must provide evidence that you lawfully took the bird or birds in, and exported them from, the country of origin. This evidence must include a hunting license and any export documentation required by the country of origin. You must keep these documents with the imported bird or birds permanently.

(c)*What are the exceptions to the export permit requirements?* You do not need a migratory bird export permit to:

(1)Export live captive-bred migratory game birds to Canada or Mexico if they are marked by one of the following methods:

(i)Removal of the hind toe from the right foot;

(ii)Pinioning of a wing by removal of all or some of the metacarpal bones of one wing, which renders the bird permanently incapable of flight;

(iii)Banding of one metatarsus with a seamless metal band; or

(iv)Tattooing of readily discernible numbers and/or letters on the web of one foot.

(2)Export live lawfully acquired captive-bred raptors provided you hold a valid raptor propagation permit issued under § 21.30 and you obtain a CITES permit or certificate issued under part 23 to do so. You must have full documentation of the lawful origin of each raptor, and each must be identifiable with a seamless band issued by the Service, including those with an implanted microchip for identification.

(d)*What is the exception for the transport of falconry birds?* You are not required to obtain a migratory bird import or export permit for the temporary transport of a raptor or raptors you lawfully possess for falconry to and from another country for use in falconry. Each raptor must be covered by a CITES certificate of ownership issued under part 23 of this chapter. You must have full documentation of the lawful origin of each raptor, and each must be identifiable with a seamless band issued by the Service, including those with an implanted microchip for identification. Unless you have the necessary CITES permit or certificate to permanently export a raptor from the United States, you must bring any raptor you transport out of the country for falconry back to the United States when you return. If the raptor dies or is lost, you are not required to bring it back but must report the loss immediately upon your return to the United States in the manner required by the falconry regulations of your State, and any conditions on your CITES certificate.

(e)*Will my imported or exported migratory birds be inspected?* All migratory birds imported into, or exported from, the United States, and any associated documentation, may be inspected by the Service or Customs and Border Protection. You must comply with the import and export regulations in Part 14 of this chapter.

(f)*What must I do to apply for a migratory bird import or export permit?* You must apply to the appropriate Regional Director—Attention Migratory Bird Permit Office. You can find the address for your Regional Director in § 2.2 of subchapter A of this chapter. Your application package must include a completed application (form 3-200-6, or 3-200-7 if the import or export is associated with an application for a scientific collecting permit), and a check or money order made payable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the amount of the application fee for permits issued under this section, as listed in § 13.11 of this chapter.

(g)*What criteria will the Service consider before issuing a permit?* After we receive a completed import or export application, the Regional Director will decide whether to issue you a permit based on the general criteria of § 13.21 of this chapter and whether you meet the following requirements:

(1)You are at least 18 years of age;

(2)The bird was lawfully acquired;

(3)The purpose of the import or export is consistent with the conservation of the species;

(4)For an import permit, you are authorized to lawfully possess the migratory bird after it is imported.

(h)*Are there standard conditions for the permit?* Yes, standard conditions for your permit are set forth in part 13 of this subchapter B. You also must comply with the regulations in part 14 (importation, exportation, and transportation of wildlife). We may place additional requirements or restrictions on your permit as appropriate.

(i)*How long is a migratory bird Import and Export permit valid?* Your migratory bird import or export permit expires on the date designated on its face unless it is amended or revoked, but it will not be valid for more than 5 years. Dated: November 2, 2007. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E7-22182 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 72 222 Monday, November 19, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request DATE: November 13, 2007. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service *Title:* Phytophthora Ramorum; Quarantine and Regulations. *OMB Control Number:* 0579-0310. *Summary of Collection:* Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in cooperation with the States, is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pest new to the United States or not widely distributed throughout the United States. Under “Subpart-Phytophthora Ramorum” (7 CFR 301.92 through 301.92-11, referred to as the regulation), USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) restricts the interstate movement of certain regulated and restricted articles from quarantined areas in California and Oregon to prevent the artificial spread of Phytophthora ramorum, the pathogen that causes the plant disease commonly known as sudden oak death, ramorum left blight, and ramorum dieback. *Need and Use of the Information:* APHIS will collect information through a compliance agreement to establish restrictions on the interstate movement of nursery stock from nurseries in non-quarantined counties in California, Oregon, and Washington. If California, Oregon, and Washington State did not comply with provisions by signing a compliance agreement, *P. ramorum* would have the potential to spread to eastern forests adversely impacting the ecosystem balances, foreign/domestic nursery stocks, and lumber markets. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Farms. *Number of Respondent:* 1,425. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 2,263. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 07-5720 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 29

Traces to 29 documents