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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-11-21 · PROPOSED RULES · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

93,528 words·~425 min read·/register/2007/11/21/07-5758

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-11-21.xml --- 72 224 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65557-65558 E7-22690 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: National Agricultural, Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, 65557 E7-22696 Alcohol Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Alcohol, tobacco, and other excise taxes:
Tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes; removal without tax payment for U.S. use in law enforcement activities, 65456-65457 E7-22703 Small Business Job Protection Act; implementation: Wine; small domestic producer tax credit transfer and bond computation, 65452-65456 E7-22698 PROPOSED RULES Alcohol; viticultural area designations: Leona Valley, Los Angeles County, CA, 65489-65494 E7-22697 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65646-65647 E7-22688 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65558-65559 E7-22742 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases, Secretary's Advisory Committee, 65559-65560 E7-22739 Pest risk assessments: Dropwort leaves with stems from— South Korea, 65560-65561 E7-22760 Army Army Department NOTICES Environmental statements; record of decision: Base realignment and closure— Ft. Meade, MD, 65567 07-5770 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65578-65580 E7-22731 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Advisory Committee, 65580 E7-22722 Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases— Scientific Counselors Board, 65580 E7-22772 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Medicare— Clinical Laboratory Services Competitive Bidding Demonstration project, 65581 E7-22774 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.:
Tinian, Northern Mariana Islands, 65459-65460 E7-22694 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Houston-Galveston Area Maritime Security Committee, 65582 E7-22787 Louisville Area Maritime Security Committee, 65582-65583 E7-22793 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Vessels from Cameroon arriving to United States; entry conditions imposition notification; policy enforcement, 65583-65584 E7-22786 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65562-65565 E7-22767 E7-22770 Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Federal speculative position limits; revision, 65483-65487 E7-22681 Defense Defense Department See Army Department Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65596-65597 E7-22719 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Employee benefit plans; class exemptions:
Claims and extensions of credit in connection with litigation; release, 65597-65603 E7-22718 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: A.O. Smith Electrical Products Co., 65603 E7-22751 Dixie Consumer Products, LLC, 65604 E7-22749 Ford Motor Co., 65604 E7-22746 Glaxo Smith Kline, 65604-65605 E7-22747 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al., 65605-65606 E7-22744 Lake Erie Products et al., 65606-65607 E7-22745 Pfizer, Inc., 65608 E7-22748 Superior Studs, LLC, 65608 E7-22743 Energy Energy Department NOTICES Meetings:
Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee, 65568 E7-22765 International Energy Agency Industry Advisory Board, 65568-65569 E7-22764 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Maine, 65462-65466 E7-22596 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Maine, 65494 E7-22599 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65569-65571 E7-22756 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
State Innovation Program, 65571-65572 E7-22755 Pesticide registration, cancellation, etc.: 4-Aminopyridine, 65572-65573 E7-22655 Pyridate, 65573-65574 E7-22663 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Pesticides— Registration review; updated schedule, 65574-65576 E7-22382 Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.: Universal Laboratories Site, MI, et al., 65576 E7-22757 Executive Executive Office of the President See Management and Budget Office See Presidential Documents Export Export-Import Bank NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 65576 07-5806 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airspace: Objects affecting navigable space— Colo Void Clause Coalition; antenna systems co-location; voluntary best practices; policy statement, 65449-65451 E7-22720 Airworthiness directives: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, 65443-65445 E7-22415 Boeing, 65446-65449 E7-22724 CFM International, S.A., 65445-65446 E7-22647 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Bombardier, 65474-65478 E7-22726 E7-22728 McDonnell Douglas, 65471-65474, 65478-65480 E7-22725 E7-22727 SAAB, 65480-65482 E7-22729 NOTICES Meetings:
RTCA, Inc., 65633-65634 07-5763 07-5765 RTCA Program Management Committee, 65633-65634 07-5764 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Common carrier services: Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets; American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee petition, 65494-65508 E7-22657 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Federal Deposit Insurance Act; implementation: Deposit insurance assessments; 2008 designated reserve ratio, 65576-65577 E7-22576 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65584-65586 E7-22711 E7-22713 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal agency actions on proposed highways; judicial review claims:
Daggett County, UT; Browns Park Road project, 65634-65635 E7-22734 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 65577 E7-22775 Ocean transportation intermediary licenses: Continental International et al., 65577 E7-22783 Sunship International, Inc., 65577 E7-22784 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission PROPOSED RULES Freedom of Information Act; implementation, 65494 E7-22792 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies:
Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 65577-65578 E7-22735 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National transit database— Safety and Security Reporting Manual; amendments, 65636-65638 E7-22768 Urbanized area apportionments; strike adjustment policy, 65635-65636 E7-22766 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species permit applications, determinations, etc., 65591 E7-22730 Meetings:
North American Wetlands Conservation Council, 65591-65592 E7-22794 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* California National Steel & Shipbuilding Company, 65563 E7-22758 Ohio, 65563 E7-22762 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Umatilla National Forest, OR, 65561-65562 07-5773 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65592 07-5762 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Meetings:
American Health Information Community, 65578 07-5791 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency See Transportation Security Administration See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services See U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Meetings: National Infrastructure Advisory Council, 65581 E7-22693 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65588-65591 E7-22683 E7-22707 E7-22708 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Geological Survey See National Park Service International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping:
Chlorinated isocyanurates from— China, 65563-65564 E7-22763 Light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from— China, 65564 E7-22753 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: Semi-fabricated copper and brass products sector and paper sector; Chinese government policies affecting U.S. trade, 65595-65596 E7-22667 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Civil Trial Sections Chiefs, Federal Claims Section Court, et al.; civil claims compromise and closing, 65457-65459 E7-22702 NOTICES Meetings:
Violence Against Women National Advisory Committee, 65596 E7-22721 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Employment and Training Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 65610 07-5796 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Outpatient medical, dental, and pharmacy services furnished by DoD medical treatment facilities; recovery rates from tortiously liable third persons, 65629 E7-22701 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65638 E7-22687 Mine Mine Safety and Health Federal Review Commission See Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Patents and other intellectual property rights:
Foreign patent licensing regulations removed, 65451-65452 E7-22704 National Credit National Credit Union Administration RULES Credit unions: Organization and operations— Eligible obligations; purchase, sale, and pledge, 65441-65443 E7-22709 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: International Exhibitions Federal Advisory Committee, 65610 E7-22732 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Motor carrier safety standards:
Fee schedule; U.S. cash deposits or obligations offer in lieu of sureties on DOT conformance bonds, 65532-65539 E7-22532 Motor vehicle safety standards: School bus passenger crash protection requirements; upgrades, 65509-65532 07-5758 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Northeastern United States fisheries— Summer flounder, 65466-65469 E7-22741 PROPOSED RULES Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish, crab, salmon, and scallop, 65539-65556 07-5774 Ocean and coastal resource management:
Marine sanctuaries— Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries, CA; limit on vessel discharges, 65483 E7-22710 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65564-65565 E7-22769 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 65565-65566 07-5766 Natural resource damage assessments: Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, NJ, 65566 E7-22712 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Castle Nugent Farms, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; special resource study, 65593 E7-22723 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Self-governance Tribes; non-BIA programs eligible for self-governance funding agreements; list, 65593-65595 E7-22733 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, 65566-65567 E7-22795 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Production and utilization facilities; domestic licensing:
Pressurized thermal shock events; alternate fracture toughness protection requirements, 65470 E7-22761 Radioactive material; packaging and transportation: Safe transport of radioactive material; document availability, 65470-65471 E7-22759 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: B&W reactor plants; model safety evaluation relating to changes to end-state requirements for required actions, 65615-65629 E7-22738 Combustible gas control; boiling water reactor technical specification changes, 65610-65615 E7-22740 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65608-65610 E7-22706 Office Office of Management and Budget See Management and Budget Office Pension Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65629-65630 E7-22791 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65638-65644 E7-22689 E7-22691 Hazardous materials:
Special permit applications; list, 65644-65645 07-5749 Special permit modification applications; list, 65645 07-5750 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* National Family Week (Proc. 8206), 65649-65652 07-5815 EXECUTIVE ORDERS ITER International Fusion Energy Organization; designating as a public international organization (EO 13451), 65653 07-5816 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Investment Company Act of 1940: Kiewit Investment Fund LLLP, 65630-65631 E7-22736 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
NYSE Arca, Inc., 65631-65632 E7-22737 State State Department NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: International Security Advisory Board, 65632-65633 E7-22752 Meetings: International Economic Policy Advisory Committee, 65633 E7-22750 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment: Wisconsin Central Ltd., 65645-65646 E7-22677 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Transit Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Maritime and land transportation security:
Transportation Worker Identification Credential; enrollment— Boston, MA, et al., 65586-65587 E7-22754 Treasury Treasury Department See Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 65587-65588 E7-22771 Immigration: Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, 65588 E7-22679 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Passenger Vessel Services Act; non-coastwise-qualified vessels violation interpretation;
Hawaiian coastwise cruises, 65487-65489 E7-22788 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department RULES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Contract Appeals Board; transfer of duties to GSA's Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, 65461-65462 E7-22705 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 65649-65653 07-5815 07-5816 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 224 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Rules and Regulations NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 701 RIN 3133-AD37 Purchase, Sale, and Pledge of Eligible Obligations AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NCUA is amending its rule governing the purchase, sale, and pledge of eligible obligations by adding a conflict of interest provision substantially similar to the conflict of interest provision in NCUA's general lending rule. This addition will help ensure that decisions by a federal credit union
(FCU)regarding the purchase, sale, and pledge of eligible obligations are made with the FCU's best interests in mind. DATES: This final rule is effective December 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Tapia or Frank Kressman, Staff Attorneys, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone
(703)518-6540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The NCUA continually reviews its regulations to “update, clarify and simplify existing regulations and eliminate redundant and unnecessary provisions.” NCUA Interpretive Rulings and Policy Statement
(IRPS)87-2, Developing and Reviewing Government Regulations. Under IRPS 87-2, NCUA conducts a rolling review of one-third of its regulations each year, involving both internal review and public comment. NCUA's 2006 review produced a recommendation to include a conflict of interest provision in the eligible obligations rule similar to the one in NCUA's general lending rule. 12 CFR 701.21(c)(8), 12 CFR 701.23. B. Discussion Generally, the eligible obligations rule implements the statutory provisions limiting the purchase, sale, and pledging of an eligible obligation, which is defined by the NCUA Board as a loan or group of loans. 12 U.S.C. 1757(13); 12 CFR 701.23. Subject to certain exceptions, the rule provides that an FCU may purchase eligible obligations, which the regulation defines as loans made to a member by another lender, from any source as long as the loans are ones the FCU is empowered to grant, up to an amount equal to 5% of its unimpaired capital and surplus. 12 CFR 701.23(b)(1). Exceptions in the rule include purchasing nonmember student and real estate secured loans for purposes of completing a loan pool for sale on the secondary market. In addition, loans purchased to complete a pool and loans purchased as part of an indirect lending or indirect leasing program are exempt from the 5% limit on eligible obligations. The Board issued a proposed rule, with request for comments, to add a conflict of interest provision to the eligible obligations rule that is similar to the conflict provision in NCUA's general lending regulation. 72 FR 35207 (June 27, 2007), 12 CFR 701.21(c)(8)(i). The Board believes eligible obligation transactions, which involve the buying and selling of member loans, potentially present the same kinds of conflicts of interest as where an FCU is the original lender to its member. The proposal provided that an official, employee, or their immediate family members may not receive, directly or indirectly, any commission, fee or other compensation in connection with an eligible obligations transaction. The proposal was intended to help ensure FCUs make decisions concerning the purchase and sale of eligible obligations based on appropriate business considerations rather than any personal benefit to insiders. C. Summary of Comments NCUA received only five comments: Two from credit union trade associations, two from state leagues, and one from an FCU. One of the trade associations stated it did not support the rule because NCUA had not supported “the need” for the rule, why it was proposed, or “what problems it sought to address.” The other trade association stated it recognized that “self-dealing and insider benefit should not be a motivating factor in a credit union's business” and generally supported the rule, emphasizing its strong support for the exceptions in the rule that allow various permissible payments. One of the state leagues, while stating it agrees with “the concept of avoiding conflicts of interest,” thought it was “an important issue” that credit unions should address in an internal policy or guidelines. This same commenter stated it was not aware “that there are any outstanding concerns,” did not see the need for the rule and, therefore, did not support it. The other state league that commented stated that, although it knew “of no immediate need for a conflict of interest provision regarding” eligible obligations, it believed “the clarity provided for in the proposed change benefits all affected parties and will help ensure that decisions * * * [are for] sound business considerations rather than any personal benefit to insiders.” The FCU stated it did not feel the rule was necessary to ensure that FCUs make appropriate business decisions, questioned the need for the regulation, and contended the rule “introduced an additional regulatory burden.” This commenter asked, if the rule is finalized, that it be narrowly interpreted so as not to inhibit certain activities common in the secondary market and offered the example of credit union attendance at conferences with secondary market participants that include meals. This commenter stated the rule should be interpreted as applicable on a “per transaction basis,” meaning the determination should be whether there is prohibited compensation tied to the purchase or sale of a particular loan or group of loans. Contrary to assertions in a couple of the comment letters, the Board believes the proposal clearly stated the basis for the proposed amendment: “The Board believes eligible obligation transactions, which involve the buying and selling of member loans, potentially present the same kinds of conflicts of interest as where an FCU is the original lender to its member. For that reason, the Board proposes to add a conflict of interest provision * * * similar to the conflict of interest provision in NCUA's general lending rule.” 72 FR 35207, 35208 (June 27, 2007). Some commenters appear to equate the “need” for a rule with instances or evidence of actual problems having occurred. The Board has recognized the potential for conflicts in eligible obligations transactions exists, just as in general lending, and, therefore, believes it should not wait for inappropriate transactions to occur to establish a “need” for a conflicts provision. The amendment is essentially and simply a rule of conduct and does not create any additional regulatory burden, for example, by affecting the current limitations on eligible obligation purchases or requiring FCUs undertake any additional record keeping or disclosures. Finally, the Board concludes having a conflict of interest provision in the eligible obligations rule paralleling the provision in the general lending rule is good regulatory structure and, as one commenter noted, adds clarity beneficial to all parties engaging in eligible obligation transactions with FCUs. The Board notes it intends the conflict of interest provision to remove the incentive for personal gain at the credit union's expense in connection with an eligible obligations transaction. For example, the rule does not prohibit a credit union employee from attending a secondary market conference for information gathering and other business purposes to enhance the credit union's ability to engage in prudent eligible obligations transactions. Rather, the rule will be interpreted in the context of particular transactions and seeks to prevent purchases of loans that are not in the credit union's best interest. The rule accomplishes this by prohibiting personal economic incentives, such as fees or commissions, from being part of a transaction. NCUA reiterates that there are numerous exceptions built into the rule that allow employees to receive compensation for their eligible obligations activities under controlled circumstances. The Board adopts the proposed conflict of interest provision for the eligible obligations rule without change as a final rule. Regulatory Procedures Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (those under ten million dollars in assets). This rule adds a conflict of interest provision to the eligible obligations rule. There is minimal regulatory burden associated with this and the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act NCUA has determined that this rule will not increase paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) (SBREFA) provides generally for a congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 551. The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not a major rule for purposes of SBREFA. As required by SBREFA, NCUA will file the appropriate reports with Congress and the General Accounting Office so this rule may be reviewed. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701 Conflict of interests, credit unions, eligible obligations, loans. By the National Credit Union Administration Board on November 15, 2007. Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board. For the reasons discussed above, NCUA amends 12 CFR part 701 as follows: PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS 1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1787, and 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.* , 42 U.S.C. 1861 and 42 U.S.C. 3601-3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311-4312. 2. Section 701.23 is amended by adding new paragraph
(g)to read as follows: § 701.23 Purchase, sale, and pledge of eligible obligations. (g)(1) *Conflicts of interest* . No federal credit union official, employee, or their immediate family member may receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation in connection with that credit union's purchase, sale, or pledge of an eligible obligation under the provisions of § 701.23.
(2)*Permissible payments.* This section does not prohibit:
(i)A federal credit union's payment of salary to employees;
(ii)A federal credit union's payment of an incentive or bonus to an employee based on the credit union's overall financial performance;
(iii)A federal credit union's payment of an incentive or bonus to an employee, other than a senior management employee, in connection with that credit union's purchase, sale or pledge of an eligible obligation. This payment is permissible if the board of directors establishes a written policy and internal controls for the incentive or bonus program and monitors compliance with the policy and controls at least annually; and
(iv)Payment by a person other than the federal credit union of compensation to a volunteer official, non-senior management employee, or their immediate family member, for a service or activity performed outside the credit union provided that the federal credit union, the official, employee, or their immediate family member has not made a referral.
(3)*Business associates and family members.* All transactions under this section with business associates or family members not specifically prohibited by paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be conducted at arm's length and in the interest of the federal credit union.
(4)*Definitions.* The definitions in § 701.21(c)(8)(ii) of this part apply to this section. [FR Doc. E7-22709 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0176; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-14-AD; Amendment 39-15263; AD 2007-23-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 206A and 206B Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
(BHTC)Model 206A and 206B helicopters. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The aviation authority of Canada, with which we have a bilateral agreement, states in the MCAI: Reevaluation of the structural analysis indicates the need for the removal from service of bolts in this application. The removal of certain main rotor latch bolts is required because these bolts do not have a mandatory retirement life. Further evaluation has shown that these bolts fail prematurely due to fatigue. This fatigue failure may result in failure of the main rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct this unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 6, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *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:* Deliver to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone
(817)222-5122, fax
(817)222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD may contain text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Airworthiness Directive No. CF-2006-23R1, dated March 12, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for these Canadian-certificated products. The MCAI states: Reevaluation of the structural analysis indicates the need for the removal from service of bolts in this application. The removal of certain main rotor latch bolts is required because these bolts do not have a mandatory retirement life. Further evaluation has shown that these bolts fail prematurely due to fatigue. This fatigue failure may result in failure of the main rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct this unsafe condition on these products. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Bell Helicopter Textron has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-109, dated July 25, 2006. The actions described in this MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition identified in the service information. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and the referenced service information. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. The removal of certain bolts is required within 30 days because these bolts do not have a mandatory retirement life. Further evaluation has shown that these bolts fail prematurely due to fatigue. This fatigue failure may result in failure of the main rotor and subsequent loss of the helicopter. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct this unsafe condition on these products. Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in the “Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI” section within the AD. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the affected bolts may fail prematurely due to fatigue. This fatigue failure may result in failure of the main rotor and subsequent loss of the helicopter. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0176; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-14-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD. Cost of Compliance We estimate this proposed AD would affect about 1463 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work hours per helicopter to replace affected bolts if not done as part of the scheduled main rotor hub disassembly. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1414 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,770,992, or $1894 per helicopter. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-23-17 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada:** Amendment 39-15263. Docket No. FAA-2007-0176; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-14-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 6, 2007. Other Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model 206A and 206B helicopters, up to and including serial number 3216, with a main rotor latch bolt, part number 206-010-169-001, 206-010-169-003, or 206-011-122-003, certificated in any category. Reason
(d)The mandatory continued airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Reevaluation of the structural analysis indicates the need for the removal from service of bolts in this application. The removal of certain main rotor latch bolts is required because these bolts do not have a mandatory retirement life. Further evaluation has shown that these bolts fail prematurely due to fatigue. This fatigue failure may result in failure of the main rotor and subsequent loss of the helicopter. Actions and Compliance
(e)Within 30 days, remove from service each main rotor latch bolt that has a P/N that is included in the applicability of this AD and replace it with an airworthy bolt. Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI
(f)None. Subject
(g)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code: 6200 Main Rotor System. Other Information
(h)The following information also applies to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone
(817)222-5122, fax
(817)222-5961.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* Use only FAA approved corrective actions. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the United States. You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(i)Mandatory continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI)Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive No. CF-2006-23-R1, dated March 12, 2007, and Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-109, dated July 25, 2006, contain related information. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2007. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22415 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0108; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-15-AD; Amendment 39-15270; AD 2007-24-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5C4/1 Series Turbofan Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)for CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5C4/1 series turbofan engines. That AD currently requires that the low pressure turbine
(LPT)conical support, part number (P/N) 337-002-407-0, be removed from service at or before reaching the cyclic life limit of 9,350 cycles-since-new (CSN). This AD requires that the same P/N LPT conical support be removed from service before reaching the new, relaxed cyclic life limit of 20,000 CSN. This AD results from CFM International, S.A. performing a life extension study of the LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0. We are issuing this AD to prevent LPT conical supports from remaining in service beyond their certified cyclic life limit, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. DATES: Effective December 6, 2007. We must receive any comments on this AD by January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* U.S. Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Sheely, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; *e-mail: stephen.k.sheely@faa.gov* ; telephone
(781)238-7750; fax
(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 15, 2001, we issued AD 2001-17-14, Amendment 39-12405 (66 FR 44297, August 23, 2001). That AD requires that the CFM56-5C4/1 series turbofan engine LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0, be removed from service at or before reaching the cyclic life limit of 9,350 CSN. That AD was the result of the discovery of an error in the Time Limits Section of Chapter 5 of the CFM56-5C Engine Shop Manual. The manual incorrectly listed the published cyclic life limit of the CFM56-5C4/1 turbofan engine LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0, as 15,000 CSN, rather than the certified value of 9,350 CSN. Actions Since We Issued AD 2001-17-14 Since we issued AD 2001-17-14, CFM International, S.A. performed a life extension study of the CFM56-5C4/1 engine LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0. The results of the study show that the calculated cyclic life limit is above 20,000 CSN. Based on the study, CFM International, S.A. has now established a relaxed certified cyclic life limit of 20,000 CSN for this part. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD Although no airplanes that are registered in the United States use these CFM56-5C4/1 turbofan engines, the possibility exists that the engines could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other turbofan engines of the same type design. We are issuing this AD to prevent LPT conical supports from remaining in service beyond their certified cyclic life limit, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. This AD requires that the CFM56-5C4/1 series turbofan engine LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0, be removed from service at or before reaching the new, relaxed cyclic life limit of 20,000 CSN. Applicability Paragraph Correction In AD 2001-17-14, we incorrectly stated that the engines were installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A320 series airplanes. In this AD we corrected the airplane model to A340 series airplanes. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “AD Docket No. FAA-2007-0108; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-15-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. 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 AD. Using the search function of the Federal Docket Management System Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Docket Number Change We are transferring the docket for this AD to the Federal Docket Management System as part of our on-going docket management consolidation efforts. The new Docket No. is FAA-2007-0108. The old Docket No. became the Directorate Identifier, which is 2001-NE-15-AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-12405 (66 FR 44297, August 23, 2001), and by adding a new airworthiness directive, Amendment 39-15270, to read as follows: **2007-24-04 CFM International, S.A.:** Amendment 39-15270. Docket No. FAA-2007-0108; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-15-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective December 6, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2001-17-14, Amendment 39-12405. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5C4/1 series turbofan engines with low pressure turbine
(LPT)conical support, part number (P/N) 337-002-407-0, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A340 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from CFM International, S.A. performing a life extension study of the LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0. We are issuing this AD to prevent LPT conical supports from remaining in service beyond their certified cyclic life limit, which could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f)Remove LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0, at or before accumulating 20,000 cycles-since-new
(CSN)and replace with a serviceable part.
(g)After the effective date of this AD, do not install any LPT conical support, P/N 337-002-407-0, with 20,000 or more CSN, into CFM56-5C4/1 series turbofan engines. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h)The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)None. Related Information
(j)Contact Stephen Sheely, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *stephen.k.sheely@faa.gov;* telephone
(781)238-7750; fax
(781)238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 14, 2007. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22647 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0211; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-221-AD; Amendment 39-15268; AD 2007-24-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. Summary: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive detailed inspections for damage of the electrical wire and sleeve that run to the fuel boost pump through a conduit in the fuel tank, and arcing damage of the conduit and signs of fuel leakage into the conduit; replacement of the sleeve with a new, smaller-diameter sleeve; and related investigative and corrective actions, as applicable. This new AD reduces the inspection threshold for certain airplanes. This AD results from a report of a fuel tank explosion on a Model 727-200F airplane on the ground, and a report of chafed wires and a damaged power cable sleeve of a fuel boost pump discovered during an inspection on a Model 737-300 airplane. (The fuel boost pump installation on certain Model 737 airplanes is almost identical to the installation on Model 727 airplanes.) We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the fuel boost pump electrical wiring and leakage of fuel into the conduit, and to prevent electrical arcing between the wiring and the surrounding conduit, which could result in arc-through of the conduit, and consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 6, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 6, 2007. On June 6, 2007 (72 FR 28597, May 22, 2007), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007. We must receive any comments on this AD by January 22, 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 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: Suzanne Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6438; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On May 2, 2007, we issued AD 2007-11-07, amendment 39-15064 (72 FR 28597, May 22, 2007). (A correction of that AD was published in the **Federal Register** on August 21, 2007 (72 FR 46559).) That AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for damage of the electrical wire and sleeve that run to the fuel boost pump through a conduit in the fuel tank, and arcing damage of the conduit and signs of fuel leakage into the conduit; replacement of the sleeve with a new, smaller-diameter sleeve; and related investigative and corrective actions, as applicable. That AD resulted from a report of a fuel tank explosion on a Model 727-200F airplane on the ground, and a report of chafed wires and a damaged power cable sleeve of a fuel boost pump discovered during an inspection on a Model 737-300 airplane. The actions specified in that AD are intended to detect and correct chafing of the fuel boost pump electrical wiring and leakage of fuel into the conduit, and to prevent electrical arcing between the wiring and the surrounding conduit, which could result in arc-through of the conduit, and consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank. Actions Since AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2007-11-07, we were contacted by an operator who misinterpreted the compliance threshold in a way that was not intended. Therefore, we are issuing this new AD to restate certain compliance thresholds in a new way in order to avoid misinterpretation and to ensure continued operational safety of these airplanes. To do so, we have based certain compliance thresholds on previous accomplishment of any revision of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120 identified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of This AD. These revisions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120 were previously mandated by AD 99-21-15, amendment 39-11360 (64 FR 54763, October 8, 1999) and the two ADs it superseded. AD 99-21-15 was superseded by AD 2007-11-07; therefore, we have not restated the requirements of AD 99-21-15 in this new AD. Related Rulemaking On May 1, 2007, we issued AD 2007-11-08, amendment 39-15065 (72 FR 28594, May 22, 2007), which applies to all Boeing Model 727 airplanes. AD 2007-11-08 requires repetitive inspections for damage of the electrical wire and sleeve that run to the fuel boost pump though a conduit in the fuel tank, and arcing damage of the conduit and signs of fuel leakage into the conduit; applicable investigative and corrective actions; and a repetitive engine fuel suction feed operational test. That AD resulted from reports of a fuel tank explosion on a Model 727-200F airplane on the ground; and of chafed wires and a damaged power cable sleeve of a fuel boost pump that were discovered during an inspection required by an existing AD on a Model 737-300 airplane. We issued that AD to detect and correct chafing of the fuel boost pump electrical wiring and leakage of fuel into the conduit, and to prevent electrical arcing between the wiring and the surrounding conduit, which could result in arc-through of the conduit, and consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank. Relevant Service Information Since we issued AD 2007-11-07, Boeing has issued Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2007. We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain actions in AD 2007-11-07. The procedures in Revision 2 of the service bulletin are essentially the same as those in Revision 1, with several editorial changes such as a revised e-mail address, and the addition of references to AD 2007-11-07. Revision 2 also incorporates alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) previously approved for AD 2007-11-07. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are issuing this AD to supersede AD 2007-11-07. This new AD retains certain requirements of the existing AD. This AD also reduces the compliance threshold for certain airplanes. Interim Action We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0211; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-221-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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 39-15064 (72 FR 28597, May 22, 2007), corrected at 72 FR 46559, August 21, 2007, and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-24-02 Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0211; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-221-AD; Amendment 39-15268. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective December 6, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2007-11-07. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a fuel tank explosion on a Model 727-200F airplane on the ground, and a report of chafed wires and a damaged power cable sleeve of a fuel boost pump discovered during an inspection on a Model 737-300 airplane. (The fuel boost pump installation on certain Model 737 airplanes is almost identical to the installation on Model 727 airplanes.) We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the fuel boost pump electrical wiring and leakage of fuel into the conduit, and to prevent electrical arcing between the wiring and the surrounding conduit, which could result in arc-through of the conduit, and consequent fire or explosion of the fuel tank. 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. Certain Requirements of AD 2007-11-07 Inspection and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions
(f)At the applicable time specified by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for damage of the sleeve and electrical wire of the fuel boost pump; and, before further flight, install a new, smaller-diameter sleeve, and do related investigative and corrective actions, as applicable; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2007. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 2 must be used. Thereafter, repeat the detailed inspection at intervals not to exceed 15,000 flight hours.
(1)For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: At the time specified in paragraph
(i)or
(j)of this AD, as applicable.
(2)For Model 737-200C series airplanes: Within 120 days after June 6, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-11-07), or within 5,000 flight hours after the last inspection or repair done in accordance with any version of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28-1120, whichever occurs later. Inspection Report and Disposition of Damaged Parts
(g)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD and send any damaged parts to the manufacturer, as described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For any inspection done on or after June 6, 2007: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2)For any inspection done before June 6, 2007: Submit the report within 30 days after June 6, 2007. Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information
(h)Actions accomplished before June 6, 2007, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, dated February 19, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. New Requirements of This AD Previously Required Inspection at New Compliance Times
(i)For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes having line numbers 1 through 3072 inclusive: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, or within 5,000 flight hours after the last inspection or repair done in accordance with any service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(1)Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, dated April 24, 1998, as revised by Notices of Status Change NSC 01, dated May 7, 1998, NSC 02, dated May 8, 1998, and NSC 03, dated May 9, 1998.
(2)Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, Revision 1, dated May 28, 1998.
(3)Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, Revision 2, dated November 26, 1998.
(4)Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1120, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2001.
(j)For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes having line numbers 3073 and subsequent: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD.
(1)For airplanes on which the inspection or repair specified in any service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD, has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD or 5,000 flight hours after the last inspection done in accordance with any service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes on which the inspection or repair specified in any service bulletin listed in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD, has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 5,000 total flight hours, or within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Inspection Report and Disposition of Damaged Parts
(k)For Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of any inspection required by paragraph
(i)or
(j)of this AD and send any damaged parts to the manufacturer, as described in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2007. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For any inspection done after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2)For any inspection done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(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)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 99-21-15, amendment 39-11360, and AD 2007-11-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(m)You must use applicable Boeing service bulletins specified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 1.—All Material Incorporated by Reference Service Bulletin Revision level Date Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263 1 March 19, 2007. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1263 2 August 10, 2007.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2007, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)On June 6, 2007 (72 FR 28597, May 22, 2007), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1263, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007.
(3)Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22724 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 77 [Docket No. FAA-2004-16982; Notice No. 07-16] Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna Systems Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); DOT. ACTION: Notice of amended policy. SUMMARY: On April 27, 2004, the FAA revised its policy regarding the co-location of antenna systems on existing structures previously studied by the FAA. Based on various additional comments from industry regarding the initial policy, the FAA finds that further modifications to this policy are necessary. DATES: This policy is effective on November 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: René J. Balanga, ATC Spectrum Engineering Services, Spectrum Assignment and Engineering Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone
(202)267-3819 or
(202)267-9710. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability of Documents You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by— 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ); 2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* ; 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, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the notice number or docket number of this rulemaking. Background Prior to April 2004, when the FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard for proposed construction or alteration of an antenna structure, the Determination included the following condition: “This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including an increase in heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters requires separate notice to the FAA.” As a result of this condition, a proponent seeking only to add frequencies to a previously studied structure for which the FAA had issued a Determination of No Hazard must file notice with the FAA. They must file the notice on FAA Form 7460-1 in accordance with the previous discussed condition. On April 27, 2004, the FAA revised its policy regarding the notification requirements for co-locating antenna systems on existing structures previously studied by the FAA. ( *See* Notice No. 04-03; FAA-2004-16982; 69 FR 22732; April 27, 2004.) The FAA adopted this new policy, which was based on a Best Practices Agreement recommended by the CVCC. 1 Under this policy, a proponent is not required to file notice for an aeronautical study when adding certain frequencies to an existing structure that has a current Determination of No Hazard on file with the FAA. The policy applies only to antenna systems operating on the following frequencies and service types, as dictated by various parts of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (47 CFR), 1 The CVCC is a coalition of wireless cellular phone and Personal Communication Services
(PCS)service providers, tower companies, and trade associations, including the Personal Communications Industry Association
(PCIA)and the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA). CVCC members currently own or manage most of the radio towers throughout the United States. Major wireless service providers primarily make up the coalition, but all other wireless service providers in the cellular phone and PCS industries are represented by the CVCC through membership with PCIA and CTIA. • 806-821 MHz and 851-866 MHz (Industrial/Business/Specialized Mobile Radio Pool—Part 90). • 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz (Public Safety Mobile Radio Pool—Part 90). • 816-820 MHz and 861-865 MHz (Basic Exchange Telephone Radio—Parts 1 and 22). • 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz (Cellular Radiotelephone—Parts 1 and 22). • 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz (Air-Ground Radiotelephone—Parts 1 and 22). • 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz (900 MHz SMR—Part 90). • 901-902 MHz and 930-931 MHz (Narrowband PCS—Part 24). • 929-930 MHz, 931-932 MHz, and 940-941 MHz (Paging—Parts 1, 22, and 90). • 1850-1990 MHz (Broadband PCS—Part 24, Point-to-Point Microwave—Part 101). • 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz (Wireless Communications Service (WCS)—Part 27). On February 1, 2006, the CVCC requested that the agency consider amending the April 27, 2004 policy by adding additional frequency bands to the policy. The following frequency bands and wireless services, as prescribed in 47 CFR, were submitted by the CVCC: • 698-806 MHz (Advanced Wireless Service—Part 27). • 1710-1755 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2110-2180 MHz (Advanced Wireless Service—Part 27). • 1670-1675 MHz (Wireless Communications Service—Part 27). • 1990-2000 MHz (Broadband PCS—Part 24). • 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (Mobile Satellite Service—Part 25). • 2320-2345 MHz (Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service—Part 27). • 2496-2690 MHz (Broadband Radio Service—Part 27). • 6.0-7.0 GHz, 10.0-11.7 GHz, 17.7-19.7 GHz, and 21.2-23.6 GHz (Fixed Microwave Service—Part 101). In reviewing the above list, the FAA notes that two frequency bands (1710-1755 MHz [Advanced Wireless Service] and 21.2-23.6 GHz [Fixed Microwave Service]) 2 overlap a portion or in its entirety, frequency bands the FAA currently uses to support aviation. These services may include, but are not limited to, critical situational data regarding aircraft positioning to air traffic controllers or essential voice or data communication links for air traffic control operations. If harmful electro magnetic interference
(EMI)occurs to these FAA services, the services may be interrupted or degraded to a level at which pilots or air traffic controllers miss vital flight transmissions, thus potentially reducing aviation safety in the National Airspace System. On June 13, 2006, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, in part, sought to require notice for wireless services and fixed microwave services operating in the 21.2-23.6 GHz (71 FR 34028; June 13, 2006). These frequencies are now included under this amended policy. Even though the agency has not adopted a final rule in this matter and the rule is pending, the FAA announces its intention to exclude the 21.2-23.6 GHz frequencies from the final rule. When the final rule is issued, those frequencies will be withdrawn. FAA's review of prior case studies of co-located antenna systems and extensive engineering evaluations showed minimal EMI effects on FAA facilities from wireless services propagating on a majority of the identified frequency bands above, if operating under typical specifications. In addition, existing frequency coordination policies set forth by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, facilitate the evaluation of potential EMI in frequency bands that are joint-use by industry and the FAA. Therefore, the FAA concludes that the current policy can be amended to include the proposed frequencies. Lastly, the April 27, 2004, policy stated several conditions that would facilitate the assurance of aviation safety from the potential of EMI. One condition is for proponents to provide the FAA with an electronic copy of its antenna system location databases. Since the inception of the policy, the FAA has received several requests for clarification by CVCC members with respect to that condition 1. Condition 1 provides that, The proponent must provide the FAA Regional Spectrum Offices with an electronic copy of its antenna system location databases quarterly or as specified in a Letter of Agreement with the FAA Regional Spectrum Offices. *CVCC members seek clarification with respect to:*
(1)The type of information necessary for the electronic database;
(2)the sites that need to be included during each quarterly database submittal to the FAA; and
(3)how to submit the database file(s). We have reconsidered the condition and find that any unintentional EMI resulting under this policy can be mitigated by condition 2 of the policy. 3 Therefore, condition 1 can be withdrawn and it will no longer be necessary to provide that information. The amended policy is restated in its entirety below. Policy The FAA recognizes the telecommunications industry's need and commitment to provide wireless services to the public. Also, the FAA recognizes that it is essential for these companies to speed up the time frame for build-out and deployment of their networks. However, the FAA's first commitment is to aviation safety. Thus the FAA finds that it can amend its policy to accommodate certain issues raised by the CVCC's Best Practices Agreement. Notwithstanding this new policy, the requirements under 14 CFR part 77 about notice to the FAA of proposed construction or alteration of man-made structures under existing FAA policy and regulations are not altered or modified. If the addition of frequencies, under this policy, to a previously studied structure increases the height of that structure, notice must be filed with the FAA under 14 CFR 77.13. Physical structures located on or near public use landing facilities raise concerns about possible obstruction to aircraft, and the FAA will handle these issues pursuant to current regulations and procedures. 2 In 2006, the FCC conducted an auction of the 2GHz (1.7 GHz and 2.1GHz) frequency band (Auction 66). 3 Condition 2—If an antenna system, operating in the designated frequency bands, causes EMI to one or more FAA facilities, the FAA will contact the proponent. The proponent must mitigate the EMI in a timely manner, as recommended by the FAA in each particular case. Depending upon the severity of the interference, the proponent must eliminate harmful EMI either by adjusting operating parameters, (for example, employing extra filtering or reducing effective radiated power), or by ceasing transmissions, as may be required by the FCC and the FAA. Failure to provide successful EMI mitigation techniques will result in referral to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action. (69 FR 22732; April 27, 2004) Under this new policy, a proponent is not required to file notice with the FAA for an aeronautical study to add frequencies to an existing structure that has a current No Hazard Determination on file with the FAA. If an additional antenna system must be used to add frequencies, the antenna system must not be located on Federal or public use landing facilities property. Also, the antenna system must not be co-located or mounted on an FAA antenna structure without prior coordination with the FAA's ATC Spectrum Engineering Services. This policy only applies to antenna systems operating on the following frequencies and service types, as dictated by various parts of 47 CFR: • 698-806 MHz (Advanced Wireless Service—Part 27). • 806-821 MHz and 851-866 MHz (Industrial/Business/Specialized Mobile Radio Pool—Part 90). • 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz (Public Safety Mobile Radio Pool—Part 90). • 816-820 MHz and 861-865 MHz (Basic Exchange Telephone Radio—Parts 1 and 22). • 824-849 MHz and 869-894 MHz (Cellular Radiotelephone—Parts 1 and 22). • 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz (Air-Ground Radiotelephone—Parts 1 and 22). • 896-901 MHz and 935-940 MHz (900 MHz SMR—Part 90). • 901-902 MHz and 930-931 MHz (Narrowband PCS—Part 24). • 929-930 MHz, 931-932 MHz, and 940-941 MHz (Paging—Parts 1, 22, and 90). • 1710-1755 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2110-2180 MHz (Advanced Wireless Service—Part 27). • 1670-1675 MHz (Wireless Communications Service—Part 27). • 1850-1990 MHz (Broadband PCS—Part 24, Point-to-Point Microwave—Part 101). • 1990-2000 MHz (Broadband PCS—Part 24). • 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (Mobile Satellite Service—Part 25). • 2305-2320 MHz and (Wireless Communications Service (WCS)—Part 27). • 2320-2345 MHz (Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service—Part 27). • 2496-2690 MHz (Broadband Radio Service—Part 27). • 6.0-7.0 GHz, 10.0-11.7 GHz, 17.7-19.7 GHz, and 21.2-23.6 GHz (Fixed Microwave Service—Part 101). In addition, the following conditions also apply:
(1)If an antenna system, operating in the designated frequency bands, causes EMI to one or more FAA facilities, the FAA will contact the proponent. The proponents must mitigate the EMI in a timely manner, as recommended by the FAA in each particular case. Depending on the severity of the interference, the proponent must eliminate harmful EMI either by adjusting operating parameters (for example, employing extra filtering or reducing effective radiated power), or by ceasing transmissions, as may be required by the FCC and the FAA. Failure to provide successful EMI mitigation techniques will result in referral to the FCC's Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action.
(2)This policy only applies to current technologies and modulation techniques (analog, TDMA, GSM, etc.) existing in the wireless radiotelephone environment on the date of issuance of this policy. Any future technologies placed into commercial service by wireless service providers, although operating on the frequencies mentioned above, must either coordinate the new technology with the FAA's ATC Spectrum Engineering Services or must provide notification to the FAA under 14 CFR part 77 procedures. The FAA will revise the conditional language in future cases involving Determination of No Hazard to reflect this policy. Furthermore, this policy applies retroactively to any structure for which the FAA has issued a Determination of No Hazard. Issued in Washington, DC on November 15, 2007. Steve Zaidman, Vice President, Technical Operations Services. [FR Doc. E7-22720 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Part 1245 [Notice: (07-083)] RIN 2700-AD35 Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NASA is amending its regulations by removing NASA's Foreign Patent Licensing Regulations. NASA no longer follows these regulations, but issues licenses based on Government-wide licensing regulations promulgated by the Department of Commerce that take precedence over individual agency licensing regulations. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Kennedy, Commercial and Intellectual Property Law Practice Group, Office of the General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, telephone
(202)358-2065, fax
(202)358-4341. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Commerce issued Government-wide regulations which prescribe the terms, conditions, and procedures upon which a federally-owned invention may be licensed both internationally and domestically. The Department of Commerce regulations take precedence over individual agency licensing regulations. NASA grants licenses in accordance with the Department of Commerce regulations. Thus, NASA is cancelling its foreign licensing regulations. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1245 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Inventions and patents. Under the authority, 42 U.S.C. 2473, 14 CFR part 1245 is amended as follows: PART 1245—PATENTS AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1. The authority citation for part 1245 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2457, 35 U.S.C. 200 *et seq.* Subpart 4—[Removed and Reserved] 2. Remove and reserve Subpart 4, consisting of §§ 1245.400 through 1245.405. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-22704 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 24 [T.D. TTB-64; Re: T.D. ATF-390 and ATF Notice No. 852] RIN 1513-AA05 Small Domestic Producer Wine Tax Credit—Implementation of Public Law 104-188, Section 1702, Amendments Related to the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (96R-028T) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule (Treasury decision). SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is adopting as a final rule, with some clarifying or editorial changes, the temporary regulations concerning transfer of the small domestic producer wine tax credit and computation of the wine bond that were adopted in response to the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie D. Ruhf, Regulations and Rulings Division, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220;
(202)927-8202; or *Marjorie.Ruhf@ttb.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)is responsible for administering the provisions of Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), including promulgating regulations pursuant to Chapter 51 pertaining to Federal excise taxes on alcohol beverage products. Section 5041 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5041) imposes a tax on wines in bond in, produced in, or imported into, the United States. Section 5041(c) allows a credit against the tax for small domestic wine producers. The regulations implementing this credit were promulgated in part 24 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 24). Prior to January 24, 2003, our predecessor Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), administered the regulations in part 24. History of the Small Domestic Producer Wine Tax Credit The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (the RRA), Title XI of Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388-400, was enacted on November 5, 1990. Section 11201 of the RRA increased by 90 cents per wine gallon the rate of tax on still wines and artificially carbonated wines removed from bonded premises or Customs custody on or after January 1, 1991. The law did not increase the tax rate on champagne and other sparkling wine. Section 11201 also provided a credit of up to 90 cents per wine gallon for small domestic wine producers on the first 100,000 gallons of wine (other than champagne and other sparkling wine) removed for consumption or sale during a calendar year. This credit could be taken by a bonded wine premises proprietor who produced not more than 250,000 gallons of wine in a given calendar year. The provisions of section 11201 separated the activities of production and removal in such a way that eligibility for the credit was based on removal of wine by an eligible small producer and was not conditioned on the producer actually producing the wine removed. Thus, a proprietor who produced less than 250,000 gallons of wine a year could take the small domestic producer wine tax credit on wine purchased and received in bond as long as the wine was within the first 100,000 gallons of wine removed from the small producer's bonded premises during the calendar year. Under the RRA, small wine producers were eligible to take the small producer wine tax credit only on wine removed for consumption or sale by that producer. If the producer transferred wine in bond to another bonded wine premises (for example, a bonded wine cellar used as a warehouse) for storage pending subsequent removal by the warehouse, then the producer could not claim a credit on that wine, since the producer had not removed the wine for consumption or sale. If the warehouse did not produce wine at all, or produced more than 250,000 gallons of wine, then the warehouse was not eligible for the small producer wine tax credit. Even if the warehouse produced wine and was eligible for credit in its own right, its eligibility was limited to the first 100,000 gallons removed during the year. In order to receive the credit, some small wineries began to taxpay their wines at the time of removal and store the wines in a taxpaid status rather than transfer them in bond. The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 Section 1702 of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (the SBJPA), Public Law 104-188, 110 Stat. 1755, enacted on August 20, 1996, included an amendment to the small domestic wine producer tax credit provision in section 5041(c). The SBJPA amendment allowed the tax credit authorized under section 5041(c) to be taken by “transferees in bond” such as bonded wine cellars used as warehouses on behalf of their small producer customers. As a result of this amendment, section 5041(c) now provides that if wine produced by any person would be eligible for the small producer credit if removed by the producer, and if wine produced by that person is transferred in bond to another person (the transferee) who removes the wine during the calendar year and is liable for the tax on the wine, then the transferee (and not the producer) will be allowed to take the small producer credit under certain circumstances. The producer of the wine must hold title to the wine at the time of its removal and must provide to the transferee such information as is necessary to properly determine the transferee's credit under section 5041(c)(6). The statutory language thus limits the application of the credit to transferees in bond receiving wine from the actual producer of the wine in question and not from a subsequent owner who may also be a small producer. In addition to the transfer of credit provisions, the SBJPA included an amendment to the bond computation rules in 26 U.S.C. 5354, which allowed the small domestic producer wine tax credit to be taken into account when calculating the penal sum of the bond. The SBJPA provided that the amendments made by section 1702 took effect as if they had been included in the provisions of the RRA to which the amendment related. Accordingly, the amendments made to the small domestic producer wine tax credit provisions under the SBJPA were retroactive to January 1, 1991. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (the TRA), Public Law 105-34, 111 Stat. 788, was enacted on August 5, 1997. Section 908 of the TRA added to section 5041 a new wine tax class, “hard cider,” imposed a $0.226 rate of tax on hard cider, and provided for a reduced amount of the small domestic producer wine tax credit ($0.056) applicable to the hard cider tax rate. These provisions applied to hard cider removed from bond on or after October 1, 1997. Rulemaking Actions In response to these three statutory changes, ATF took the following regulatory actions. On December 11, 1990, ATF published T.D. ATF-307 (55 FR 52732), a final rule effective January 1, 1991, to implement a number of changes related to the RRA. Among other changes, T.D. ATF-307 added two new sections to 27 CFR part 24. New § 24.278 implemented the wine tax credit for small domestic producers. New § 24.279 set forth the procedure for making adjustments to tax returns as a result of improper application of the tax credit. ATF did not request comments prior to issuing this final rule. On June 2, 1997, ATF published at 62 FR 29663 a temporary rule, T.D. ATF-390, to amend §§ 24.148, 24.278, and 24.279 (27 CFR 24.148, 24.278, and 24.279) to implement the SBJPA statutory changes. In the temporary rule, ATF also incorporated in § 24.278(a) the provisions of ATF Ruling 92-1 (A.T.F. Q.B. 1992-3, 55), which held that the small producer wine tax credit is available only to eligible proprietors engaged in the business of producing wine. On the same day, ATF published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice No. 852 (62 FR 29681), inviting comments on this temporary rule. The one comment that ATF received on this temporary rule is discussed below. On August 21, 1998, ATF published at 63 FR 44779 another temporary rule, T.D. ATF-398, to implement the hard cider tax rate and several other provisions of the TRA. This temporary rule amended § 24.278 to reflect a new rate for the small domestic producer wine tax credit on hard cider. On the same day, ATF published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice No. 859 (63 FR 44819), inviting comments on that temporary rule. For various reasons unrelated to the amendment of the credit provision in § 24.278, ATF extended the comment period, postponed the labeling compliance date, and solicited comments on alternative labeling rules. The T.D. ATF-398 amendment to § 24.278 was adopted as a final rule without any change by T.D. ATF-470 (66 FR 68938) on November 26, 2001. Discussion of Comment Received in Response to T.D. ATF-390 As previously stated, ATF received only one comment in response to the temporary rule implementing the SBJPA statutory changes. Kenwood Vineyards commented that the provisions of the temporary rule placed the burden of “recordkeeping, reporting, compliance and cash flow” on the transferee in bond and suggested that the small producer should pay the tax, subject to any appropriate credit, on its own return when the transferee removes the wine. TTB cannot adopt this suggestion because under 26 U.S.C. 5043, when wine is transferred in bond as authorized by 26 U.S.C. 5362(b), the liability for payment of the tax becomes the liability of the transferee at the time of removal of the wine from the transferor's premises. The law provides that liability for paying the tax transfers to the transferee when the wine is transferred in bond and that the transferor is relieved of liability. TTB cannot by regulation alter who is liable to pay the tax. Adoption of Final Rule Based on the legislative and rulemaking history outlined above, TTB has determined that the temporary regulations published in T.D. ATF-390 should be adopted as a final rule with minor corrections and clarifications as discussed below. In § 24.148, we are making two corrections in the table: 1. In the first column (Bond), we are updating the form number of the Wine Bond to read TTB F 5120.36. 2. In the second column (Basis), we are revising paragraph (1). Prior to the amendment by T.D. ATF-390, the first sentence of paragraph (1), which sets out the basis for calculating the bond coverage, read, in pertinent part, “tax on all wine or spirits possessed, in transit or unaccounted for at any one time * * *.” This wording was based on that of the underlying statute, 26 U.S.C. 5354, which reads, in pertinent part, “tax on any wine or distilled spirits possessed or in transit at any one time * * *.” In T.D. ATF-390, we inadvertently omitted the word “possessed.” We are correcting that omission by restoring the word “possessed” to mirror the statute. We are also subdividing paragraph
(1)to separate the two maximum penal sum amounts. In § 24.278, we are making the following changes and corrections: 1. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), we are substituting the phrase “tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 5041” for the words “tax imposed by this section.” The latter wording reflects the precise statutory language, which is inapposite in the context of the regulatory text. 2. We are retaining, in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), the references to hard cider adopted in T.D. ATF-470, as previously discussed. 3. At the end of paragraph (e)(2), we are adding a sentence to clarify that sparkling wine, which is not eligible for credit, does not count as a removal against the 100,000 gallon limitation. This reflects the longstanding position of TTB and ATF. 4. In § 24.278(g), we are adding a reference to section 5041(c)(5) of the IRC to clarify the statutory basis for the language setting forth the requirements with regard to deductions under Subtitle A of the IRC. In § 24.279(a), we are adding a reference to the statutory conditions for imposition of penalties under section 6662 of the IRC. The added language clarifies circumstances in which TTB would require the inclusion of these penalties as part of the adjustment for excess credit taken during a calendar year. Finally, we are making some plain language and other editorial changes to §§ 24.148, 24.278, and 24.279 to enhance their clarity and readability without substantively affecting the texts, and we have added the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number to § 24.148 and updated the OMB control numbers for §§ 24.278 and 24.279 as noted in the Paperwork Reduction Act discussion in this preamble. Inapplicability of Delayed Effective Date Requirement Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3), we are issuing these regulations without a delayed effective date. These final regulations recognize an exemption within the meaning of section 553(d)(1) because they implement a 1996 statutory amendment expanding the scope of the small domestic producer wine tax credit in order to cover removals by transferees in bond under specified circumstances. Furthermore, TTB has determined that good cause exists to provide wineries with immediate guidance on their utilization of this credit in accordance with section 553(d)(3). Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), we certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any revenue effects of this rulemaking on small businesses flow directly from the underlying statute. Likewise, any secondary or incidental effects, and any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens flow directly from the statute. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(f), the temporary regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and we received no comments. Executive Order 12866 It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The collections of information in the regulations contained in this final rule have been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)) under control numbers 1512-0058, 1512-0540, and 1512-0492, originally issued to ATF. When TTB took over the administration of the wine tax, these control numbers were changed by OMB to 1513-0009, 1513-0104, and 1513-0088, respectively. Although sections of the regulations covered by these approvals are amended for clarity, this final rule imposes no new or revised collection of information, and does not change the reporting or recordkeeping burden. Drafting Information Marjorie Ruhf of the Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this document. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 24 Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations, Claims, Electronic fund transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives, Fruit juices, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and flavoring, Surety bonds, Taxpaid wine bottling house, Transportation, Vinegar, Warehouses, Wine. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the temporary rule amending 27 CFR part 24, which was published on June 2, 1997, at 62 FR 29663, is adopted as a final rule with the changes as discussed above and set forth below. PART 24—WINE 1. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5008, 5041, 5042, 5044, 5061, 5062, 5081, 5111-5113, 5121, 5122, 5142, 5143, 5148, 5173, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5351, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364-5373, 5381-5388, 5391, 5392, 5511, 5551, 5552, 5661, 5662, 5684, 6065, 6091, 6109, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7011, 7302, 7342, 7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306. 2. Section 24.148 is revised to read as follows: § 24.148 Penal sums of bonds. The penal sums of bonds prescribed in this part are as follows: Bond Basis Penal sum Minimum Maximum
(a)Wine Bond, TTB F 5120.36
(1)Wine operations coverage.
(i)Not less than the tax on all wine or spirits possessed, in transit, or unaccounted for at any one time, taking into account the appropriate small producer wine tax credit $1,000 $50,000
(ii)Where the liability exceeds $250,000 100,000
(2)Tax deferral coverage. Where the unpaid tax amounts to more than $500, not less than the amount of tax which, at any one time, has been determined but not paid. Exception: $1,000 of the wine operations coverage may be allocated to cover the amount of tax which, at any one time, has been determined but not paid, if the total operations coverage is $2,000 or more 500 250,000
(b)Wine Vinegar Plant Bond, TTB F 5510.2 Not less than the tax on all wine on hand, in transit, or unaccounted for at any one time 1,000 100,000 * The proprietor of bonded wine premises who operates an adjacent or contiguous wine vinegar plant with a wine bond that does not cover the operation may file a consent of surety to extend the terms of the wine bond in lieu of filing a wine vinegar plant bond. (26 U.S.C. 5354, 5362) (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1513-0009) 3. Section 24.278 is revised to read as follows: § 24.278 Tax credit for certain small domestic producers.
(a)*General.* A person who produces not more than 250,000 gallons of wine during the calendar year may take a credit against any tax imposed by Title 26 of the United States Code (other than Chapters 2, 21, and 22), in an amount computed in accordance with paragraph
(d)of this section, on the first 100,000 gallons of wine (other than champagne and other sparkling wine) removed during that year for consumption or sale. This credit applies only to wine that has been produced at a qualified bonded wine premises in the United States. The small domestic wine producer tax credit is available only to eligible proprietors engaged in the business of producing wine. A proprietor who has a basic permit to produce wine but does not produce wine during a calendar year may not take the small producer wine tax credit on wine removed during that calendar year. A proprietor who has obtained a new wine producer basic permit may not take the small producer wine tax credit on wine removed until the proprietor has produced wine. “Production” of wine includes those activities described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(b)*Special rules relating to eligibility for wine credit—*
(1)*Controlled groups.* For purposes of this section and § 24.279, the term “person” includes a controlled group of corporations, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 1563(a), except that the phrase “more than 50 percent” must be substituted for the phrase “at least 80 percent” wherever it appears. Also, the rules for a “controlled group of corporations” apply in a similar fashion to groups that include partnerships and/or sole proprietorships. Production and removals of all members of a controlled group are treated as if they were the production and removals of a single taxpayer for the purpose of determining what credit a person may use.
(2)*Credit for transferees in bond.* A person other than the eligible small producer (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the “transferee”) may take the credit under paragraph
(a)of this section that would be allowed to that producer if the wine removed by the transferee had been removed by the producer on that date, under the following conditions:
(i)Wine produced by any person would be eligible for any credit under this section if removed by that person during the calendar year;
(ii)Wine produced by that person is removed during that calendar year by the transferee to whom that wine was transferred in bond and who is liable for the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 5041 with respect to that wine;
(iii)That producer holds title to that wine at the time of its removal and provides to the transferee such information as is necessary to properly determine the transferee's credit under this paragraph; and
(iv)At the time of taxable removal, the producer provides to the transferee, in writing (each retaining a copy with the record of taxpaid removal from bond pursuant to § 24.310), the following information:
(A)The names of the producer and transferee;
(B)The quantity and tax class of the wines to be shipped;
(C)The date of removal from bond for consumption or sale;
(D)A confirmation that the producer is eligible for credit, with the credit rate to which the wines are entitled; and
(E)A confirmation that the subject shipment is within the first 100,000 gallons of eligible wine removed by (or on behalf of) the producer for the calendar year.
(c)*Time for determining and allowing credit.* The credit referred to in paragraph
(a)of this section will be determined at the same time as the tax is determined under 26 U.S.C. 5041(a), and will be allowable at the time any tax described in paragraph
(a)of this section is payable. The credit allowable by this section is treated as if it constitutes a reduction in the rate of the tax.
(d)*Computation of credit.* The credit which may be taken on the first 100,000 gallons of wine (other than champagne and other sparkling wine) removed for consumption or sale by an eligible person during a calendar year is computed as follows:
(1)For persons who produce 150,000 gallons or less of wine during the calendar year, the credit is $0.90 per gallon for wine ($0.056 for hard cider);
(2)For persons who produce more than 150,000 gallons but not more than 250,000 gallons during the calendar year, the credit is reduced by 1 percent for every 1,000 gallons produced in excess of 150,000 gallons. For example, the credit that would be taken by a person who produced 160,500 gallons of wine and hard cider during a calendar year would be reduced by 10 percent, for a net credit against the tax of $0.81 per gallon for wine or $0.0504 for hard cider, as long as the wine or hard cider was among the first 100,000 gallons removed for consumption or sale during the calendar year.
(e)*Definitions* —(1) *Production.* For purposes of determining if a person's production of wine is within the 250,000 gallon limit, production includes, in addition to wine produced by fermentation, any increase in the volume of wine due to the winery operations of amelioration, wine spirits addition, sweetening, or production of formula wine. Production of champagne and other sparkling wines is included for purposes of determining whether total production of a winery exceeds 250,000 gallons. Production includes all wine produced at qualified bonded wine premises within the United States and wine produced outside the United States by the same person.
(2)*Removals.* For purposes of determining if a person's removals are within the 100,000 gallon limit, removals include wine that the person removed from all qualified bonded wine premises within the United States. Wine removed by a transferee in bond under paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be counted against the 100,000 gallon limit of the small producer who owns that wine, and not against the limit of the transferee in bond if the transferee is also a small producer. Champagne and other sparkling wines, which are not eligible for credit, do not count as removals against the 100,000 gallon limit.
(f)*Preparation of tax return.* A person who is eligible for the credit must show the amount of wine tax before credit on the Excise Tax Return, TTB F 5000.24, and must enter the quantity of wine subject to the credit and the applicable credit rate as the explanation for an adjusting entry in Schedule B of the return for each tax period. Where a person does not use the credit authorized by this section to directly reduce the rate of Federal excise tax on wine, that person must report on TTB F 5000.24 where the credit will be, or has been, applied. Where a transferee in bond takes credit on behalf of one or more small producers, the transferee must show in Schedule B of the return the name of each producer, each producer's credit rate, and the total credit taken on behalf of each producer during the tax return period.
(g)*Denial of deduction.* Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5041(c)(5), any deduction under 26 U.S.C. subtitle A with respect to any tax against which the credit is allowed under paragraph
(a)of this section must only be for the amount of the tax as reduced by the credit.
(h)*Exception to credit.* The appropriate TTB officer will deny any tax credit taken under paragraph
(a)of this section where it is determined that the allowance of the credit would benefit a person who would otherwise fail to qualify for the use of the credit. (26 U.S.C. 5041(c).) (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1513-0104) 4. Section 24.279 is revised to read as follows: § 24.279 Tax adjustments related to wine credit.
(a)*Increasing adjustments.* Persons who produce more wine than the amount used in computation of the credit, or who lose eligibility by not producing during a calendar year, must make increasing tax adjustments. Where an increasing adjustment to a person's tax return is necessary as a result of an incorrect credit rate claimed pursuant to § 24.278, that person must make the adjustment on the Excise Tax Return, TTB F 5000.24, no later than the return period in which production (or the production of the controlled group of which the person is a member) exceeds the amount used in computation of the credit. If the adjustment is due to failure to produce, the person must make the adjustment no later than the last return period of the calendar year. The adjustment is the difference between the credit taken for prior return periods in that year and the appropriate credit for those return periods. The person must make tax adjustments for all bonded wine premises where excess credits were taken against tax that year, and must include interest payable. In the case of a person who continued to deduct credit after reaching the 100,000 gallon maximum during the calendar year, that person must make an adjustment in the full amount of excess credit taken and must include interest payable under 26 U.S.C. 6601 from the date on which the excess credit was taken. In addition, the person must include the penalty payable under 26 U.S.C. 6662 if the appropriate TTB officer determines that the underpayment was due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations and advises the person to include the penalty as part of the adjustment. The appropriate TTB officer will provide information, when requested, regarding interest rates applicable to specific time periods and regarding any applicable penalties. In the case of a controlled group of bonded wine premises that took excess credits, all member proprietors who took incorrect credits must make tax adjustments as determined in this section. In the case of a small producer who instructed a transferee in bond to take credit as authorized by § 24.278(b)(2), and subsequently determines that the credit was less or not applicable, that producer must immediately inform the transferee in bond, in writing, of the correct credit information. The transferee must make any increasing adjustment on its next tax return based on revised credit information given by the producer or a TTB officer.
(b)*Decreasing adjustments.* Where a person fails to deduct the credit or deducts less than the appropriate credit provided for by § 24.278 during the calendar year, the person may file a claim for refund of excess tax paid. The claim must be filed in accordance with § 24.69. In the case of wine removed on behalf of a small producer by a transferee in bond, if the transferee in bond was instructed to deduct credit and failed to deduct credit or deducted less than the appropriate credit and was later reimbursed for the tax by that producer, the transferee may file the claim. The provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6423 and 27 CFR part 70, subpart F, will apply, and the producer and transferee in bond must show that the conditions of § 24.278(b)(2) were met. (26 U.S.C. 5041(c)) (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1513-0088) Signed: August 24, 2007. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: November 5, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. E7-22698 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 45 [T.D. TTB-63; Re: T.D. TTB-26] RIN 1513-AA99 Removal of Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes, Without Payment of Tax, for United States Use in Law Enforcement Activities (2003R-268P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision adopts as a final rule, without change, a temporary rule that allows manufacturers of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes to remove these articles without payment of tax for use by Federal agencies in law enforcement activities, and without inclusion of the otherwise required tax-exempt label. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Greenberg, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20220; telephone 202-927-8210; or e-mail *Amy.Greenberg@ttb.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Section 5704(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 5704(b)) provides that a manufacturer may, among other things, remove tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes without payment of tax for use of the United States, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The regulations administered by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)include, in part 45 (27 CFR part 45), provisions that implement this aspect of section 5704(b). Section 45.31 of those regulations (27 CFR 45.31) previously set forth two circumstances in which manufacturers of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes were permitted to remove those articles without payment of Federal excise tax for gratuitous distribution under the supervision of a Federal agency. Neither of those circumstances included the removal of articles for use by Federal agencies in law enforcement activities. In addition, Section 45.46 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 45.46) provided that every package of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes removed under part 45 must have the words “Tax-Exempt. For Use of U.S. Not To Be Sold.” adequately imprinted on the package or on a label securely affixed to the package. Publication of Temporary Rule On April 15, 2005, TTB published in the **Federal Register** at 70 FR 19888, as T.D. TTB-26, a temporary rule that amended the TTB regulations to eliminate the need for manufacturers of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes to obtain a variance to remove their products without payment of tax for use by a Federal Agency in an investigation or other law enforcement activity. Under the temporary rule, the supplying of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes by manufacturers to Federal agencies continued to be voluntary. The changes to the regulations did not impose additional cost, compliance, or reporting burdens on manufacturers. The temporary rule revised § 45.31 by dividing that section into paragraphs
(a)and
(b)in order to include the substantive change and improve the readability of the section. In addition, we amended § 45.46 by adding an exception to the tax exempt labeling requirements. The Bureau received three comments on the temporary rule. One commenter specifically endorsed the temporary changes, recognizing that they would significantly help law enforcement efforts. The second commenter, a cigarette importer, supported the temporary rule for purposes of facilitating law enforcement. The third commenter supported the principle of tax-free removals for certain purposes. Based on the reasons set forth above and on comments received, we believe it is appropriate to adopt the temporary rule as a final rule without change. Inapplicability of Delayed Effective Date Requirement Because these regulations recognize an exemption to tax payment, relieve manufacturers of the requirement to file a variance, and are identical to temporary regulations currently in effect, it has been determined pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and
(3)that good cause exists to issue these regulations without a delayed effective date. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation provides greater flexibility for manufacturers of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes to remove these products without being subject to tax and imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 We have determined that this notice of final rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Drafting Information Maria Mahone of the Knowledge Management Staff drafted this final rule. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 45 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Cigars and cigarettes, Excise taxes, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tobacco. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the temporary rule amending 27 CFR part 45 published in the **Federal Register** at 70 FR 19888 on April 15, 2005, is adopted as a final rule without change. Signed: September 18, 2007. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: November 5, 2007. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. E7-22703 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 0 [Tax Division Directive No. 135] Redelegation of Authority To Compromise and Close Civil Claims AGENCY: Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This Tax Division directive increases the settlement authority of the Chiefs of the Civil Trial Sections, the Court of Federal Claims Section, the Appellate Section, the Office of Review, and the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, to compromise and close civil claims. In addition, this directive increases the discretionary redelegation of limited authority by a section chief to his or her assistant chiefs and reviewers. This directive supersedes Directive No. 105. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Meland, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530,
(202)307-6567. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . This regulation is not a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order 13866, as amended, and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Finally, this regulation does not have an impact on small entities and, therefore, is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This action pertains to agency management, personnel and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies). Accordingly, 28 CFR part 0 is amended as follows: PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-19. 2. The Appendix to Subpart Y of Part 0 is amended by removing Tax Division Directive No. 105 and adding in its place Tax Division Directive No. 135, to read as follows: Appendix to Subpart Y of Part 0—Redelegations of Authority To Compromise and Close Civil Claims [Directive No. 135] By virtue of the authority vested in me by Part 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, particularly Sections 0.70, 0.160, 0.162, 0.164, 0.166, and 0.168, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. The Chiefs of the Civil Trial Sections, the Court of Federal Claims Section, and the Appellate Section are authorized to reject offers in compromise, regardless of amount, provided that such action is not opposed by the agency or agencies involved. Section 2. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Section 10 hereof, the Chiefs of the Civil Trial Sections and the Court of Federal Claims Section are authorized to:
(A)Accept offers in compromise in, settle administratively, and close (other than by compromise or by entry of judgment), all civil cases in which the amount of the Government's concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $500,000;
(B)Accept offers in compromise in injunction or declaratory judgment suits against the United States in which the principal amount of the related liability, if any, does not exceed $500,000; and
(C)Accept offers in compromise in all other nonmonetary cases; provided that such action is not opposed by the agency or agencies involved, and provided further that the proposed compromise or concession is not subject to reference to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Section 3. The Chiefs of the Civil Trial Sections and the Court of Federal Claims Section are authorized on a case-by-case basis to redelegate in writing to their respective Assistant Section Chiefs or Reviewers the authority delegated to them in Section 1 hereof to reject offers, and in Section 2 hereof, to accept offers in compromise in, settle administratively, and close (other than by compromise or by entry of judgment), all civil cases in which the amount of the Government's concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $250,000; provided that such redelegation is not made to the attorney-of-record in the case. The redelegations pursuant to this section shall be by memorandum signed by the Section Chief, which shall be placed in the Department of Justice file for the applicable case. Section 4. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Section 10 hereof, the Chief of the Appellate Section is authorized to:
(A)Accept offers in compromise with reference to litigating hazards of the issue(s) on appeal in all civil cases (other than claims for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and court costs) in which the amount of the Government's concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $500,000;
(B)Accept offers in compromise in injunction [see sec. 2(B)] or declaratory judgment suits against the United States in which the principal amount of the related liability, if any, does not exceed $500,000;
(C)Accept offers in compromise in, or settle administratively, all civil claims for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and court costs in which the aggregate amount of the Government's concession on these claims does not exceed $200,000, and in which the aggregate amount of the Government's concession in the case, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $500,000; and
(D)Accept offers in compromise in all other nonmonetary cases which do not involve issues concerning collectibility; provided that
(i)such acceptance is not opposed by the agency or agencies involved or the chief of the section in which the case originated, and
(ii)the proposed compromise is not subject to reference to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Section 5. The Chief of the Appellate Section is authorized on a case-by-case basis to redelegate in writing to the Appellate Section's Assistant Section Chiefs the authority delegated to the Chief of the Appellate Section in Section 1 hereof to reject offers, and in Section 4 hereof, to:
(A)Accept offers in compromise with reference to litigation hazards of the issue(s) on appeal in all civil cases (other than claims for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and court costs) in which the amount of the Government's concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $250,000; and
(B)Accept offers in compromise in, or settle administratively, all civil claims for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and court costs in which the aggregate amount of the Government's concession on these claims does not exceed $100,000, and in which the aggregate amount of the Government's concession in the case, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $250,000; provided that such redelegation is not made to the attorney-of-record in the case. The redelegations pursuant to this section shall be by memorandum signed by the Chief of the Appellate Section, which shall be placed in the Department of Justice file for the applicable case. Section 6. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Section 10 hereof, the Chief of the Office of Review is authorized to:
(A)Accept offers in compromise and settle administratively claims against the United States in all civil cases in which the amount of the Government's concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $1,500,000; and
(B)Accept offers in compromise and close (other than by compromise or by entry of judgment), claims by the United States in all civil cases in which the difference between the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed settlement does not exceed $1,500,000 or 15 percent of the original claim, whichever is greater;
(C)Accept offers in compromises in all nonmonetary cases; and
(D)Reject offers in compromise or disapprove concessions, regardless of amount; provided that such action is not opposed by the agency or agencies involved or the chief of the section to which the case is assigned, and provided further that the proposed compromise or concession is not subject to reference to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Section 7. The Chief, Office of Review, is authorized on a case-by-case basis to redelegate in writing to the offices' Assistant Section Chief or Reviewer the authority delegated to the Chief, Office of Review in Section 6 hereof to reject offers, and in Section 6 hereof, to accept offers in compromise in, settle administratively, and close (other than by compromise or by entry of judgment), all civil cases in which the amount of the Government's concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $750,000; provided that such redelegation is not made to the attorney-of-record in the case. The redelegations pursuant to this section shall be made by memorandum signed by the Section Chief, which shall be placed in the Department of Justice file for the applicable case. Section 8. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Section 10 hereof, each of the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General is authorized to:
(A)Accept offers in compromise and settle administratively claims against the United States in all civil cases in which the amount of the Government's concession, exclusive of statutory interest, does not exceed $2,000,000;
(B)Accept offers in compromise and close (other than by compromise or by entry of judgment), claims by the United States in all civil cases in which the difference between the gross amount of the original claim and the proposed settlement does not exceed $2,000,000 or 15 percent of the original claim, whichever is greater;
(C)Accept offers in compromise in all nonmonetary cases; and
(D)Reject offers in compromise or disapprove concessions, regardless of amount; provided that such action is not opposed by the agency or agencies involved and the proposed compromise or concession is not subject to reference to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Section 9. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Section 10 hereof, United States Attorneys are authorized to:
(A)Reject offers in compromise of judgments in favor of the United States, regardless of the amount;
(B)Accept offers in compromise of judgments in favor of the United States where the amount of the judgment does not exceed $300,000; and
(C)Terminate collection activity by his or her office as to judgments in favor of the United States which do not exceed $300,000 if the United States Attorney concludes that the judgment is uncollectible; provided that such action has the concurrence in writing of the agency or agencies involved, and provided further that this authorization extends only to judgments which have been formally referred to the United States Attorney for collection. Section 10. The authority redelegated herein shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations;
(A)When, for any reason, the compromise or concession of a particular claim, as a practical matter, will control or adversely influence the disposition of other claims totaling more than the respective amounts designated in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 hereof, the case shall be forwarded for review at the appropriate level for the cumulative amount of the affected claims;
(B)When, because of the importance of a question of law or policy presented, the position taken by the agency or agencies or by the United States Attorney involved, or any other considerations, the person otherwise authorized herein to take final action is of the opinion that the proposed disposition should be reviewed at a higher level, the case shall be forwarded for such review;
(C)If the Department has previously submitted a case to the Joint Committee on Taxation leaving one or more issues unresolved, any subsequent compromise or concession in that case must be submitted to the Joint Committee, whether or not the overpayment exceeds the amount specified in Section 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code;
(D)Nothing in this Directive shall be construed as altering any provision of Subpart Y of Part 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations requiring the submission of certain cases to the Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or the Solicitor General;
(E)Authority to approve recommendations that the Government confess error in or to concede cases on appeal is excepted from the foregoing redelegations; and
(F)The Assistant Attorney General, at any time, may withdraw any authority delegated by this Directive as it relates to any particular case or category of cases, or to any part thereof. Section 11. With respect to a claim by the United States (also sometimes referred to as a claim on behalf of the United States), the term “offer in compromise” as used in this Directive is any settlement of such a claim, except settlements in which the United States would receive nothing or virtually nothing in exchange for giving up its claim; and the term “to close (other than by compromise or entry of judgment),” refers to a settlement under which the United States would receive nothing, or virtually nothing in exchange for giving up its claim. Section 12. For a claim against the United States, the term “offer in compromise” as used in this Directive is any settlement of such a claim, except settlements in which the United States would receive nothing, or virtually nothing, in exchange for conceding the claim against it; and the term to “settle administratively,” means a settlement in which the United States would receive nothing, or virtually nothing, for conceding the claim against it. Section 13. This Directive supersedes Tax Division Directive No. 105, effective June 14, 1995. Section 14. This Directive shall become effective on November 21, 2007. Dated: October 26, 2007. Richard T. Morrison, Acting Assistant Attorney General. [FR Doc. E7-22702 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Guam 07-005] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing a permanent security zone in waters adjacent to the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Review of the established zone indicates that its scope is overly-broad and that it imposes an unnecessary and unsustainable enforcement burden on the Coast Guard. This change is intended to narrow the zone's scope so it more accurately reflects current enforcement needs. DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket COTP Guam 07-005 and are available for inspection and copying at Coast Guard Sector Guam between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam at
(671)355-4861. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On August 17, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Security Zone; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 46185). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose The security zones at Tinian codified in 33 CFR 165.1403 were first established on November 14, 1986 (51 FR 42220, November 24, 1986), as requested by the U.S. Navy in order to prevent injury or damage to persons and equipment incident to the mooring of the first Maritime Preposition Ships in the port. In addition to describing a larger security zone that is enforced when a Maritime Position Ship is moored at the site, the regulation, as currently written, establishes a permanent 50-yard security zone around Moorings A and B when no vessel is moored there. The zone is approximately 100 nautical miles from the nearest Coast Guard surveillance assets, a distance that hinders our ability to patrol it regularly. A recent review of the 50-yard zone indicates that patrolling it is unnecessary except when the Navy needs to ensure availability of the mooring space, which is signaled by the anchoring of mooring balls. The purpose of this rule is to change the smaller zone from one that is activated all the time to one that is activated only when necessary. This change reflects our current enforcement needs more accurately and eliminates our need to travel 100 miles to patrol the zone when enforcement is unnecessary. In addition, we are changing the section heading of this regulation to reflect CNMI's proper name and the fact that the section describes two security zones. We also made it easier to distinguish the two zones by describing them in separate paragraphs in 33 CFR 165.1403(a). Finally, we are clarifying that, while these regulations are in effect at all times, the security zones will only be activated—and thus subject to enforcement—when necessary. Discussion of Comments and Changes We did not receive any comments in response to our NPRM. No changes were made to the regulation text proposed in the NPRM. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the nature of the change (diminishing an established security zone's enforcement period), which is likely to further minimize the economic impact of an established rule. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Due to the nature of the change (diminishing an established security zone's enforcement period), we anticipate that it will further reduce any economic impact of the established rule. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander John Winter, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Guam,
(671)355-4861. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. That provision excludes regulations establishing or changing security zones. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. In § 165.1403, revise the section heading and paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 165.1403 Security Zones; Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(a)*Location.* The following areas are security zones:
(1)The waters of the Pacific Ocean off Tinian between 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E to 14°59′20.1″ N, 145°35′41.5″ E to 14°59′09.8″ N, 145°36′02.1″ E to 14°57′49.3″ N, 145°36′28.7″ E to 14°57′29.1″ N, 145°35′31.1″ E and back to 14°59′04.9″ N, 145°34′58.6″ E. This zone will be enforced when one, or more, of the Maritime Preposition Ships is in the zone or moored at Mooring A located at 14°58′57.0″ N and 145°35′40.8″ E or Mooring B located at 14°58′15.9″ N, 145°35′54.8″ E.
(2)Additionally, a 50-yard security zone in all directions around Moorings A and B will be enforced when no vessels are moored thereto but mooring balls are anchored and on station. Note to § 165.1403(a): All positions of latitude and longitude are from International Spheroid, Astro Pier 1944 (Saipan) Datum (NOAA Chart 81071). Dated: November 9, 2007. William Marhoffer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam. [FR Doc. E7-22694 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Parts 1 and 2 RIN 2900-AM73 Transfer of Duties of Former VA Board of Contract Appeals AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document removes provisions in Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)regulations concerning VA's former Board of Contract Appeals and provides authority for other hearing officials to hear certain salary offset matters that formerly could be heard by officials of that Board. A new Civilian Board of Contract Appeals was established within the General Services Administration
(GSA)to hear and decide contract disputes between certain Government contractors and Executive agencies. The Board of Contract Appeals that existed at VA was terminated and its cases under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 were transferred to the new Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. These amendments are necessary due to section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William F. Russo, Director, Regulations Management (00REG), Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, 202-273-9515. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA's former Board of Contract Appeals had been established under regulations promulgated pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, as amended, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, to resolve disputes between VA and its contractors concerning final decisions by VA's contracting officers. VA vested certain other responsibilities in the Chairman and other personnel of the Board of Contract Appeals, consistent with the Contract Disputes Act, as amended. On January 6, 2006, Public Law 109-163, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, was enacted. Effective January 6, 2007, section 847 of that law terminated, among other civilian Boards of Contract Appeals, VA's Board of Contract Appeals and transferred its cases to a new Civilian Board of Contract Appeals vested with authority to, among other things, resolve disputes over decisions of VA contracting officers and its contractors. The new Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, which is part of GSA, published rules of procedure in an interim rule on July 5, 2007, in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 36794). VA is removing all provisions currently in our regulations in 38 CFR concerning VA's former Board of Contract Appeals and delegations of authority to its officials, to reflect the termination of VA's former Board of Contract Appeals under the provisions of section 847 and the transfer from VA of certain responsibilities concerning access to that Board's orders. In 38 CFR 1.552, “Public access to information that affects the public when not published in the **Federal Register** as constructive notice,” paragraph
(a)currently includes provisions stating that “[a]ll final orders in such actions as entertained by the Contract Appeals Board * * * will be kept currently indexed by the office of primary program responsibility or the Manager, Administrative Services, as determined by the Secretary or designee.” Paragraph
(b)currently states that “[t]he voting records of the Contract Appeals Board will be maintained in a public reading facility in the Office of the Board in Central Office and made available to the public upon request.” GSA now maintains copies of decisions of the former VA Board of Contract Appeals and these are available on GSA's Web site. Since passage of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, VA's Board of Contract Appeals (the term which replaced “Contract Appeals Board”) had not maintained any voting records. The voting records referred to in § 1.552(b) are stored by the National Archives and Records Administration. This final rule is therefore amending § 1.552 to remove the references to VA's former responsibilities concerning public access to those orders and voting records. This final rule also amends VA's regulations on administrative wage garnishment
(AWG)in 38 CFR 1.923 and Federal salary offset in § 1.983 to remove references to Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judges or Hearing Examiners as hearing officials in AWG and Federal salary offset proceedings. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3720D and 31 CFR 285.11, VA published the AWG regulation at § 1.923. Paragraph
(c)of § 1.923 currently states that the hearing official involved in the AWG proceedings may be any VA Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judge or Hearing Examiner, or any other VA hearing official. We are amending § 1.923(c) to remove the reference to the VA Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judge or Hearing Examiner. This final rule also amends 38 CFR 1.983, one of VA's regulations pertaining to Federal salary offset. VA published Federal salary offset regulations at 38 CFR 1.980 through 1.995 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5514 and OPM government-wide regulations found at 5 CFR part 550, subpart K. 38 CFR 1.983(b)(8) currently states that a Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judge or Hearing Examiner shall conduct salary offset hearings for VA employees. Section 1.983(b)(8) goes on to state that a VA Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judge or Hearing Examiner may also conduct hearings for non-VA employees. VA is in this final rule revising § 1.983(b)(8). The changes remove the references to VA Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judges or Hearing Examiners as hearing officials. The new provisions concerning who can serve as hearing officials are in accord with 5 U.S.C. 5514(a)(2)(D), which provides that an employee is entitled to a hearing on the existence or amount of the debt, as well as the offset schedule, and that such hearing must be conducted by either an administrative law judge or someone not under the supervision or control of the head of the creditor agency. Therefore, the references to Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judges or Hearing Examiners are being replaced with references to a VA administrative law judge or a hearing official from an agency other than VA. Administrative Procedure Act This final rule concerns agency organization, procedure, and practice. The rule merely concerns delegations of authority to agency officers or employees and the removal of procedural provisions concerning the former VA Board of Contract Appeals to reflect the statutory transfer of its functions outside VA. Accordingly, the prior notice and comment and delayed effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Regulatory Flexibility Act The initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, are not applicable to this rule because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for this rule. Even so, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule would not directly affect any small entities. Therefore, this final rule is also exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this final rule. List of Subjects 38 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees. 38 CFR Part 2 Authority delegations (Government agencies). Approved: November 14, 2007. Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR parts 1 and 2 as follows: PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), and as noted in specific sections. § 1.552 [Amended] 2. Amend § 1.552 by: a. In paragraph (a), removing “All final orders in such actions as entertained by the Contract Appeals Board, those” and adding, in its place, “Those”. b. Removing paragraph (b). c. Redesignating paragraphs
(c)and
(d)as new paragraphs
(b)and (c), respectively. §§ 1.780 through 1.783 [Removed] 3. Remove the undesignated center heading immediately preceding § 1.780 and remove and reserve §§ 1.780 through 1.783. § 1.923 [Amended] 4. In § 1.923, amend the introductory text of paragraph
(c)by removing “VA Board of Contract Appeals Administrative Judge or Hearing Examiner, or any other”. 5. Revise § 1.983(b)(8) to read as follows: § 1.983 Notice requirements before salary offset of debts not involving benefits under the laws administered by VA.
(b)* * *
(8)The VA employee's right to request an oral or paper hearing on the Secretary or appropriate designee's determination of the existence or amount of the debt, or the percentage of disposable pay to be deducted each pay period, so long as a request is filed by the employee as prescribed by the Secretary. The hearing official for the hearing requested by a VA employee must be either a VA administrative law judge or a hearing official from an agency other than VA. Any VA hearing official may conduct an oral or paper hearing at the request of a non-VA employee on the determination by an appropriately designated official of the employing agency of the existence or amount of the debt, or the percentage of disposable pay to be deducted each pay period, so long as a hearing request is filed by the non-VA employee as prescribed by the employing agency. PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 6. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302, 552(a); 38 U.S.C. 501, 512, 515, 1729, 1729A, 5711; 44 U.S.C. 3702, and as noted in specific sections. § 2.4 [Amended] 7. Amend § 2.4 by removing “the Chairman, Board of Contract Appeals;”. 8. Amend § 2.5 by: a. Removing paragraph (b). b. Redesignating paragraph
(c)as new paragraph (b). c. Revising the authority citation. The revision reads as follows: § 2.5 Delegation of authority to certify copies of documents, records, or papers in Department of Veterans Affairs files. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 302, 501, 512). [FR Doc. E7-22705 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704; A-1-FRL-8492-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; Emission Statements Reporting and Definitions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the State of Maine. These revisions update Maine's criteria pollutant emissions reporting program and list of terms and associated definitions used in Maine's air pollution control regulations. The intended effect of this action is to approve these revisions into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective January 22, 2008, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 21, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov* ; Fax:
(617)918-0047; Mail: “Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704”, Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 3. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* , or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency, the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number 617-918-1046, fax number 617-918-0046, e-mail *mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. Background and Purpose II. Chapter 137, Emission Statements A. Background and Purpose B. Evaluation of Maine's Submittal 1. 40 CFR 51.15(a); Pollutants 2. 40 CFR 51.20(b); Emission Thresholds 3. 40 CFR 51.25; Geographic Coverage 4. 40 CFR 51.30(a); Reporting Due Date 5. Appendix A to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 51; Table 2a C. Results of EPA's Analysis of State's Submittal III. Chapter 100, Definitions IV. Summary of SIP Revisions V. Final Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose On July 14, 2004, and February 8, 2006, the State of Maine submitted formal revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). These SIP submittals consist of revisions to Maine's Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule, and Chapter 100 list of definitions for terms used in Maine's air pollution control regulations. EPA approved previous versions of each of these rules, and is approving the revised rules in today's action. II. Chapter 137, Emission Statements A. *Background.* Sections 182(a)(3)(B) and 184(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires that states develop and submit, as SIP revisions, rules which establish annual reporting requirements for precursors of ozone from stationary sources. To meet this requirement, on January 3, 1994, Maine submitted its Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule to EPA and requested EPA incorporate the rule into the state's SIP. EPA did so by publishing, on January 10, 1995, a final rule approving Maine's Chapter 137 emission statements reporting rule into the state's SIP (see 60 FR 2524). Subsequently, on June 10, 2002, EPA published the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(CERR)as a final rule in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 39602). This rule requires additional reporting obligations for states, chief among them a requirement that states collect air emissions data from stationary point sources for emissions of fine particulate matter (particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, sometimes noted as PM <sup>2.5</sup> ) and ammonia (NH3), which is a precursor to PM <sup>2.5</sup> formation, and report this information to EPA. On July 14, 2004, Maine submitted a revised version of its Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule to EPA. Maine had revised the rule in accordance with the provisions of EPA's CERR, and requested that EPA incorporate the revised rule into the state's SIP. B. *Evaluation of Maine's Submittal.* The CERR requires that states collect a variety of information pertaining to air emissions from industrial sources in the state, and report this information to EPA. The discussion below describes how Maine's modified Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule conforms with the requirements of EPA's CERR stated in 40 CFR Part 51. 1. 40 CFR 51.15(a); Pollutants. 40 CFR 51.15(a)(1) requires that states report emissions of sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead and lead compounds, primary PM <sup>2.5</sup> , primary PM <sup>10</sup> , and ammonia. Maine's revised Chapter 137 emission statements regulation requires collection of emissions data for all of these pollutants from industrial sources in the state. 2. 40 CFR 51.20(b); Emission thresholds. 40 CFR 51.20(b) requires that states collect emissions data from all stationary sources that emit at levels above those shown in Table 1 of Appendix A to subpart 51. Maine's revised Chapter 137 rule contains emission reporting thresholds that are more stringent than required by Table 1 of Appendix A, and as such the rule complies with EPA's 40 CFR 51.20(b) reporting requirement. 3. 40 CFR 51.25; Geographic coverage. 40 CFR 51.25 requires collection of point source data from all sources in the state that emit pollutants above the level specified in 40 CFR 51.20(b). Maine's revised Chapter 137 rule requires statewide reporting, and as such complies with this requirement. 4. 40 CFR 51.30(a); Reporting due date. 40 CFR 51.30(a) requires that states report their point source data to EPA no later than 17 months after the end of the calendar year in which the emissions occurred. Maine's revised Chapter 137 rule requires that sources report their emissions to the state within 6 months of the end of the year in which the emissions occurred, so the state will have sufficient time to collect, review, and quality assure the data prior to submitting it to EPA. 5. Appendix A to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 51; Table 2a. Table 2a lists the data elements that states must report to EPA. The provisions of Maine's revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule will enable the state to submit all of the required point source data elements listed in Table 2a of Appendix A. C. *Results of EPA's analysis of Maine's submittal.* EPA's review has found that Maine's revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule meets all of the requirements of EPA's CERR, and therefore EPA is approving the revised rule into the state's SIP. EPA takes approval action on SIP revisions based on the authority of section 110(a) of the Act. Pursuant to section 110 (a)(1) of the Act, states are required to revise their SIP when EPA promulgates or revises a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Maine's Chapter 137 Emission Statements regulation contains, in addition to criteria pollutant reporting provisions, requirements that will enable the state to collect data on certain hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs)and greenhouse gas emissions. The HAP and greenhouse gas requirements are needed for Maine to implement programs at the state level, but are not required for federal reporting purposes under the CERR. Therefore, Maine did not include the Chapter 137 HAP and greenhouse gas requirements in its SIP revision request to EPA and these provisions are not being approved into the state's SIP. The specific requirements of Maine's Chapter 137 regulation and EPA's evaluation of these requirements are detailed in a memorandum dated August 7, 2006, entitled “Technical Support Document
(TSD)for revisions to the Maine SIP of Chapter 100, Definitions Regulation, and Chapter 137, Emission Statements.” The TSD and Maine's Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule are available in the docket supporting this action. III. Chapter 100, Definitions Maine's Chapter 100 definitions regulation provides definitions for the terms used in the state's air pollution control regulations and emission standards. EPA previously approved Maine's Chapter 100 definitions in a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on October 15, 1996 (61 FR 53639). Since that time, Maine has amended its Chapter 100 list of definitions on numerous occasions in conjunction with SIP submittals it has made over time for various programs such as the Title V permitting, best available control technology, and prevention of significant deterioration programs. EPA has reviewed the list of terms and found them to conform to the applicable EPA guidance, and so we are approving Maine's revised Chapter 100 list of definitions into the state's SIP. The specific requirements of Maine's Chapter 100 Definitions regulation and EPA's evaluation of these requirements are detailed in the TSD which is available in the docket supporting this action. IV. Summary of SIP Revisions For the reasons outlined above, EPA is approving Maine's revised Chapter 100 Definitions, and revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements regulations and incorporating these regulations into the state's SIP. Maine's Chapter 100 definitions regulation provides definitions for the terms used in the state's air pollution control regulations, many of which are federally enforceable. The state's Chapter 137 Emission Statements regulation has been amended to conform with the EPA's Consolidated Emission Statements Rule. V. Final Action EPA is approving Maine's revised Chapter 100 list of definitions and revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule into the state's SIP. The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 22, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by December 21, 2007. If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on January 22, 2008 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 22, 2008. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements ( *see* section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 25, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart U—Maine 2. Section 52.1020 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(34)(i)(C) and by adding paragraph (c)(62) as follows: § 52.1020 Identification of plan.
(c)* * *
(62)Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection on July 14, 2004, and February 8, 2006.
(i)Incorporation by reference.
(A)Chapter 100 of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection Regulations, “Definitions,” effective in the State of Maine December 24, 2005.
(B)Chapter 137 of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection Regulations, “Emission Statements,” effective in the State of Maine on July 6, 2004, with the exception of the following sections which the state did not include in its SIP revision request: section 137.1.C; section 137.1.E; section 137.1.F; section 137.2.A through F; section 137.2.H; section 137.3.B; section 137.3.C; section 137.4.D(4), from the sentence beginning with “Greenhouse gases” to the end of this section; the note within section 137.D(5); section 137(E), and; Appendix A.
(ii)Additional materials.
(A)Nonregulatory portions of these submittals.
(B)Correspondence from David W. Wright of the Maine DEP dated June 6, 2006, indicating which portions of Chapter 137 should not be incorporated into the State's SIP. 3. In § 52.1031, Table 52.1031 is amended by adding a new entry to the existing state citation for Chapter 100, and by revising the entry for Chapter 137 to read as follows: § 52.1031 EPA-approved Maine regulations. Table 52.1031.—EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations State citation Title/subject Date adopted by State Date approved by EPA Federal Register citation 52.1020 * * * * * * * 100 Definitions 12/1/2005 11/21/07 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] (c)(62) Revised to add definitions associated with SIP submittals made between 7/19/95 and 12/1/05. * * * * * * * 137 Emission Statements 12/17/04 11/21/07 [Insert Federal Register page number where the document begins] (c)(62) Revised to incorporate changes required by EPA's consolidated emissions reporting rule. The entire rule is approved with the exception of HAP and greenhouse gas reporting requirements which were not included in the state's SIP revision request. * * * * * * * Note 1. The regulations are effective statewide unless stated otherwise in comments or title section. [FR Doc. E7-22596 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 070827484-7581-02] RIN 0648-AV99 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder Fishery; Fishing Year 2008 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Through this final rule, NMFS is implementing coastwide summer flounder recreational management measures to complete the rulemaking process initiated in March 2007. This action is necessary to implement appropriate coastwide management measures to be in place on January 1, 2008, following the expiration of the current state-by-state conservation equivalency management measures on December 31, 2007. The intent of these measures is to prevent overfishing of the summer flounder resource during the interim between the aforementioned expiration of the 2007 recreational measures and the implementation of measures for 2008. DATES: Effective 0001 hours, Eastern Standard Time (EST), January 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Supplemental Environmental Assessment, as well as the original Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) completed for the 2007 recreational management measures are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS Northeast Region, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. The Supplemental Environmental Assessment is also accessible via the Internet at *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael P. Ruccio, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978)281-9104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The summer flounder recreational fishery is managed cooperatively under the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The Council prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevenson Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, with subparts A (general provisions) and G (summer flounder) pertaining to the summer flounder fishery. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600. States manage summer flounder within 3 nautical miles of their coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit, regardless of where they fish. Under the FMP and regulations, the Council may recommend and NMFS may approve one of two approaches for managing the summer flounder recreational fishery: Conservation equivalency (either state-by-state or regional) with a precautionary default backstop approved by NMFS; or coastwide management measures. The FMP requires that the Council review updated assessment and fishery information on an annual basis and recommend to NMFS both a Total Allowable Landings
(TAL)and recreational management measures. For the 2007 recreational fishery, the Council recommended and NMFS approved state-by-state conservation equivalency. When the conservation equivalency measures expire at the end of a fishing year, coastwide measures found at §§ 648.103(a) and 648.105(a) become effective. Typically, the coastwide measures are adjusted during the annual rulemaking process that establishes recreational management measures to ensure that the coastwide measures are sufficient to constrain recreational landings to the established harvest limit. This is done even if conservation equivalency is implemented, as was done for 2007, because the coastwide measures serve as the interim measures in place in the following year (i.e., 2008) until new measures are put in place. This is typically completed by late spring or early summer. However, because of timing issues that arose from the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that granted authority to extend the summer flounder rebuilding period, and a subsequent increase to the 2007 TAL, NMFS did not implement any revised 2007 coastwide measures to serve as the 2008 regulatory backstop after conservation equivalency expires. Prior to this rule, the coastwide measures in the regulations were a 4-fish possession limit, a 17-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, and no closed season. These measures were determined to be insufficient to ensure that the 2007 recreational harvest limit would not be exceeded. Additional detail on the background and development of the 2007 recreational management measures and the 2008 coastwide interim management measures are contained in the preamble of the respective proposed rules (72 FR 12158; March 15, 2007, and 72 FR55166; September 28, 2007) and are not repeated here. This action is necessary to complete the final detail of the 2007 summer flounder recreational management measures rulemaking and should not be confused with the upcoming process to develop the 2008 recreational management measures. The Council will begin development of the 2008 recreational management measures, based on updated assessment information and 2007 fishery information, through its Monitoring Committee meeting in November 2007. The Council will consider the Monitoring Committee's recommendations for 2008 management measures during its December 2007 meeting in Secaucus, NJ. A proposed rule to implement summer flounder coastwide recreational interim management measures of an 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish possession limit, and a year-round season was published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55166), with public comment accepted through October 15, 2007. This final rule implements the interim summer flounder coastwide management measures proposed by NMFS, as presented in the proposed rule and outlined as follows. The Commission's Technical Committee
(TC)conducted analysis that indicated an 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size with a 4-fish possession limit and a year-round season would constrain landings to 90 percent of the emergency rule increased harvest limit (2,181,735 fish). By implementing these measures, the normal regulatory process that occurs when conservation equivalency is utilized to manage the summer flounder recreational fishery will be completed. These measures will replace the existing coastwide measures regulatory language of a 17-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, a 4-fish possession limit, and no closed season, and serve as the default management measures in place on January 1, 2008, after conservation equivalent measures have expired. These new coastwide measures will remain effective until they are either superceded by conservation equivalency measures or revised, as needed, to ensure that the 2008 recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. These measures are sufficiently risk averse as interim measures to ensure that overfishing will not occur while new measures, based on the updated 2007 stock assessment, are developed for implementation in mid-2008. Summer flounder are typically found offshore during colder winter months and only limited recreational fisheries occur in the southern range of the stock during spring. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS) data from 2001-2006 show that less than 2 percent of the annual harvest occurs in the first two MRFSS data collection periods (called waves) of the year (January-April). Approximately 31 percent of the coastwide summer flounder harvest occurs in Wave 3 (May-June). Based on recent years' development and rulemaking schedules when conservation equivalency has been utilized for summer flounder recreational management measures, it is expected that updated measures, based on 2007 recreational landings and adjusted for any quota overages, would be in place before Wave 4 (July-August) and the bulk of summer flounder recreational fisheries begin in 2008. If different coastwide measures are recommended by the Council and Commission and implemented by NMFS for 2008 management, it is expected that those measures would be in place during Wave 2 (March-April 2008). Comments and Responses Three comments were received regarding the proposed 2008 interim coastwide recreational management measures. Two of the comments received did not address any aspect of the proposed 2008 interim coastwide recreational management measures: One stated that summer flounder quotas should be reduced in 2008, and the other expressed general displeasure with recreational fishing opportunities. NMFS anticipates publishing a proposed rule for the 2008 summer flounder TAL before December 2007. That proposed rule, when published, would be the appropriate rule to address comments on quota reductions, therefore those two comments are not addressed here. *Comment 1* : The commenter inquired why a coastwide measure would be implemented that may penalize states that have used conservation equivalency measures as an effective means of constraining recreational harvests to or below the state's respective target. *Response* : This commenter appears to have confused the 2008 interim coastwide management measures with the yet to be developed 2008 management measures. As previously stated in the preamble to this final rule, the measures implemented by this rule will remain effective until replaced, by either conservation equivalency or updated coastwide measures, sometime in late spring or early summer of 2008. Coastwide measures have always become the management measures in place in the interim between the expiration of conservation equivalency and the implementation of new measures that are based on updated assessment and fishery information. The measures of this rule are necessary to ensure that the relatively minor amount of summer flounder recreational harvest that occurs in late winter will be adequately constrained by appropriate measures. The Council has not yet initiated the process that will develop the measures that will be utilized to manage the bulk of the 2008 recreational fisheries that occur during summer and fall. The Council may consider both state-by-state or regional conservation equivalency or modification of the coastwide measures to manage the 2008 summer flounder recreational fishery. Classification The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the summer flounder fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable law. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA)was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from the NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement of Objective and Need A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are explained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not repeated here. Summary of Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments A summary of the comments received, and the responses thereto, are contained in the “Comments and Responses” section of this preamble. No significant issues were raised by those submitting comments, therefore; no changes to the proposed rule were required to be made as a result of the public comments. Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Rule Will Apply The proposed measures could affect any of the 967 vessels possessing a Federal charter/party permit for summer flounder in 2006, the most recent year for which complete permit data are available. However, only 331 of these vessels reported active participation in the recreational summer flounder fishery in 2006. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule. Description of the Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small Entities NMFS undertook this additional recreational management measure rulemaking to implement interim coastwide measures that are designed to constrain recreational harvest to the 2007 recreational harvest limit as increased by emergency rule on January 19, 2007 (72 FR 2458), and extended for the remainder of 2007 (72 FR 40077; July 23, 2007). The need to develop and implement these measures resulted from public comments received on the 2007 recreational management measures proposed rule (72 FR 12158; March 15, 2007) that indicated the originally proposed measures (Alternative 2) for a 1-fish possession limit, a 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, and no closed season would be severely restrictive following the implementation of the increased 2007 TAL. During the 2007 recreational management measures rulemaking, NMFS ultimately implemented a final rule (72 FR 30492; June 1, 2007) to implement state-by-state conservation equivalency to manage the 2007 summer flounder recreational fishery. This rendered the coastwide measures moot for 2007; however, the coastwide measures are necessary as the interim management measures for the first third of 2008, after conservation equivalency has expired but before updated measures are developed and recommended for implementation by the Council. Recreational harvest data indicate that only a small percentage of the summer flounder fishery is likely to occur during the interim recreational management measures effective period. However, the Alternative 2 coastwide measure available to NMFS during the recreational management measure rulemaking development was, as the public indicated, highly restrictive under the higher 17.112-million-lb (7,762-mt) TAL implemented and extended by emergency rule. Alternative 2 had been developed and analyzed to constrain landings to the recreational harvest limit resulting from the lower, pre-emergency TAL of 12.983 million lb (5,889 mt). NMFS indicated in the 2007 recreational management measures final rule that it would undertake separate notice-and-comment rulemaking to propose and implement coastwide measures for the interim period of 2008 that were analyzed for effectiveness relative to the final, higher 2007 TAL. The 18.5-inch (46.99-cm) minimum fish size with a 4-fish possession limit and a year-round season (Alternative 3) implemented by this rule minimizes, to the extent possible, the economic impact on small entities while ensuring that the mortality objectives of the FMP and summer flounder rebuilding program will be met in the first third of 2008. The Council-proposed coastwide management measures of Alternative 2 (a 1-fish possession limit, a 19-inch (48.26-cm) minimum fish size, and no closed season) would have been unduly restrictive, constraining recreational harvest to an estimated 55 percent of the 2007 recreational harvest limit resulting from the emergency rule increased TAL. By contrast, the measures implemented by this rule are projected to constrain the recreational harvest to 90 percent of the increased TAL. The increased number of fish available for landing under Alternative 3 results in a lower impact to small entities that participate in the early season fishery by allowing slightly larger fish to be retained. The previous coastwide management measures in regulation (Alternative 1) for a 4-fish possession limit, a 17-inch (43.18-cm) minimum fish size, and no closed season was projected not to constrain recreational harvest to the 2007 recreational harvest limit. Therefore, the measures implemented by this rule are the only alternative that minimizes economic impacts by allowing the maximum potential harvest, to the extent practicable, yet achieves the biological objectives of the FMP. Small Entity Compliance Guide Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as the small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal party/charter permits issued for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. In addition, copies of this final rule and the small entity compliance guide are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and at the following Web site: *http://www.nero.noaa.gov* . Dated: November 14, 2007. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows: PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 648.103, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 648.103 Minimum fish sizes.
(b)Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, the minimum size for summer flounder is 18.5 inches (46.99 cm) TL for all vessels that do not qualify for a moratorium permit, and charter boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with more than three crew members, or party boats holding a moratorium permit if fishing with passengers for hire or carrying more than five crew members. 3. In § 648.105, the first sentence of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 648.105 Possession restrictions.
(a)Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, no person shall possess more than four summer flounder in, or harvested from, the EEZ, unless that person is the owner or operator of a fishing vessel issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, or is issued a summer flounder dealer permit. * * * [FR Doc. E7-22741 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 224 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-A101 Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events; Reopening of Comment Period for Information Collection AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule: Reopening of comment period for information collection. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is reopening the comment period specific to the information collection aspects of a proposed rule published on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56275), that would amend NRC's regulations to provide updated fracture toughness requirements for protection against pressurized thermal shock
(PTS)events for pressurized water reactor
(PWR)pressure vessels. The comment period for comments specific to the information collection aspects of the proposed rule, closed on November 2, 2007. DATES: The comment period for comments specific to the information collection aspects of the proposed rule is reopened and now closes on December 17, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: Send comments on any aspect of the proposed information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the issues mentioned in the October 3, 2007, rulemaking, by December 17, 2007, to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV* and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOP-10202, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-3092, e-mail *hst@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56275), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)published for public comment a proposed rule that would amend its regulations to provide updated fracture toughness requirements for protection against PTS events for PWR pressure vessels. The proposed rule would provide new PTS requirements based on updated analysis methods. This action is desirable because the existing requirements are based on unnecessarily conservative probabilistic fracture mechanics analysis. This action would reduce regulatory burden for licensees, specifically those licensees that expect to exceed the existing requirements before the expiration of their licenses, while maintaining adequate safety. These new requirements would be voluntarily used by any PWR licensee as an alternative to complying with the existing requirements. The NRC received several requests from public stakeholders to extend the comment period for the information collection aspects of the proposed rule. The comment period for the information collection is being reopened and now closes on December 17, 2007. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of November 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-22761 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 71 Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material; Notice of Document Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of document availability and request for comments on draft 2009 revision to International Atomic Energy Agency Regulations. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is seeking public comment on a draft revision of the International Atomic Energy Agency's
(IAEA)“Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material” (TS-R-1), which is scheduled for publication in 2009. The NRC and the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)jointly will be submitting comments on the draft document to the IAEA. We are requesting input from the public to assist in developing the U.S. comments. DATES: Comments on the proposed 2009 revision of TS-R-1 will be accepted by the NRC until January 4, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, however we are only able to assure consideration for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit written comments to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to: *nrcrep@nrc.gov.* Comments may also be hand delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be viewed at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele M. Sampson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
(301)492-3292; e-mail: *mxs14@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The IAEA periodically revises TS-R-1 to reflect new information and accumulated experience. The DOT is the U.S. competent authority before the IAEA for radioactive material transportation matters. The NRC provides technical support to the DOT in this regard, particularly with regard to Type B and fissile packages. The IAEA recently released, for 120-day Member State review, a draft revision of TS-R-1 intended for publication in 2009. To assure opportunity for public involvement in the international regulatory development process, we are requesting input from the public on the proposed revisions to TS-R-1. At this time, comments are being solicited on the changes made from the 2005 edition which are included in the 2009 draft revision. To facilitate review, the IAEA has provided a summary Table of Changes document comparing the 2005 version of TS-R-1 to the proposed 2009 changes by paragraph. Any comments made should refer to the relevant paragraph number in the 2009 draft revision of TS-R-1, and when appropriate should propose alternative text. II. Public Participation The draft 2009 revision to TS-R-1 [ML073170348] and Table of Changes [ML073170368] documents are available at the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet, accessible through the NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov.* This Web site provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. The public can gain entry into ADAMS through the agency's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , under Accession No. ML073170348, for the 2009 Draft version of TS-R-1, and Accession No. ML073170368, for the Table of Changes comparison document. The documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference Staff at
(800)397-4209,
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Comments should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** document. Comments must be submitted in writing (electronic file on disk in Microsoft Word format preferred) and are to include: • Name; • Address; • Telephone number; • E-mail address; • Relevant paragraph number in the document being reviewed, and • When appropriate, proposed alternative text. The DOT and the NRC will review the comments received from industry and the public. Based in part on the information received, the U.S. will develop comments on the revised draft of TS-R-1 to be submitted to the IAEA by February 15, 2008. Comments from the United States and other IAEA member states will be considered at an IAEA Transport Safety Standards Committee (TRANSSC) Meeting to be convened by IAEA on March 3-7, 2008, in Vienna, Austria. Subsequent domestic compatibility rulemakings by both NRC and DOT may be necessary after IAEA final publication of the 2009 revised TS-R-1. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. David W. Pstrak, Chief, Rules, Inspections, and Operations Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-22759 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F 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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; repetitive inspections for cracks of the same area; and related investigative and corrective actions. The existing AD also provides optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. This proposed AD would re-define and more clearly describe the optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. This proposed AD results from our determination that the inspections and actions described in the existing AD do not adequately address the unsafe condition. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 7, 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: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5322; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-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 we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On January 5, 2007, we issued AD 2007-02-02, amendment 39-14889 (72 FR 3044, January 24, 2007), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and DC-8-70F series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; repetitive inspections for cracks of the same area; related investigative and corrective actions; and reporting inspection findings to the manufacturer. That AD also provides optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. That AD resulted from a report indicating that a crack has been found in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice. We issued that AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2007-02-02, we have determined that the inspections and optional modification/repair described in that AD do not adequately address the unsafe condition. We concluded that more careful inspection of areas already repaired and reinforced by the installation of doublers was needed. Accordingly, we propose to re-define and more clearly describe certain inspections and the optional modification/repair to completely address the unsafe condition described in that AD. 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 2007-02-02, re-define the requirements of that AD, and clarify the optional modification/repair described in that AD which, if done, would allow extending the repetitive inspection intervals. Changes to Existing AD This proposed AD would re-define certain requirements and clarify the optional modification/repair of AD 2007-02-02. Since AD 2007-02-02 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2007-02-02 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD paragraph
(a)paragraph (f). paragraph
(b)paragraph (g). paragraph
(c)paragraph (h). Costs of Compliance There are approximately 508 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 244 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. This proposed AD would add no additional costs; however, we are repeating the costs from AD 2007-02-02 for the convenience of affected operators. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Fleet cost Initial Inspection for doubler installation 2 to 4 $160 to $320 $39,040 to $78,080. Repetitive Inspections (per inspection cycle) 2 to 8 $160 to $640 $39,040 to $156,160. Repair 164 to 184 $13,120 to $14,720 $3,201,280 to $3,591,680. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this 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 39-14889 (72 FR 3044, January 24, 2007) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 7, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-02. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, DC-8-73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from our determination that the inspections and actions described in the existing AD do not adequately address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression 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. Requirements of AD 2007-02-02 One-Time Inspection for Previous Repairs
(f)For all airplanes: At the applicable time in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, do a general visual inspection to determine if there are previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Then do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 24,000 total flight cycles as of February 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-02-02): Within 24 months after February 28, 2007, or prior to accumulating 24,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs later.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 24,000 total flight cycles or more as of February 28, 2007: Within 12 months after February 28, 2007. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Repetitive Inspections for Areas That Do Not Have a Previous Repair
(g)For areas that do not have a previous repair: Before further flight after the initial inspection in paragraph
(f)of this AD, do general visual and high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspections for discrepancies at longeron 28 between the bolted connection of the tail section to forward of the flat aft pressure bulkhead, on both the left and right sides, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Repeat the general visual and HFEC inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles until an optional action in paragraph
(i)of this AD is accomplished. Repetitive Inspections and Repair for Areas That Have a Previous Repair
(h)For areas that have a previous repair: Within 24 months after accomplishing the initial inspection in paragraph
(f)of this AD, remove the previous repair(s), and install a local repair, in accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004. Do the inspections in paragraph
(j)of this AD thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Optional Modification/Repair
(i)Installing a full-length preventive modification, doing a full-length repair, or doing a local repair, in accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13, 2004, ends the repetitive inspection intervals specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Extended Repetitive Inspection Intervals
(j)After removing the previous repair(s) and doing the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD or doing any optional repair or modification described in paragraph
(i)of this AD: Do the actions described in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. If any discrepancy is discovered during any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD.
(1)For areas that have been repaired on airplanes that do have internal finger doublers installed: Within 30,000 flight cycles after doing the optional repair or modification, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the doublers. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
(2)For areas that have been repaired on airplanes that do not have internal finger doublers installed: Do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i)For any repair that is 12 inches or less along the longeron: Within 15,000 flight cycles after removing the previous repair(s) and doing the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD or doing any optional repair or modification specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the doublers. Repeat the general visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
(ii)For any repair that is greater than 12 inches in length along the longeron: Within 15,000 flight cycles after removing the previous repair(s) and doing the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD or doing any optional repair or modification specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD, do a low-frequency eddy current
(LFEC)inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the doublers. Repeat the LFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight cycles. Reporting of Results
(k)Submit a report of positive findings of the inspections required by paragraphs
(g)and
(j)of this AD to Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Manager, Structure/Payloads, Technical and Fleet Support, Service Engineering/Commercial Aviation Services, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane fuselage number, and the total number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Information collection requirements contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For any inspection accomplished after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.
(2)For any inspection accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-02-02, amendment 39-14889, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22725 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0215; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-216-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 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 Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting contactors 1K4XD, 2K4XD, and K4XA to determine the type of terminal base plate, and applying sealant on the terminal base plates if necessary. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if certain alternating current
(AC)service and utility bus contactors have a terminal base plate made from non-G9 melamine material, and corrective actions if necessary; or reidentification of the mounting tray of the contactors; as applicable. This proposed AD also limits the applicability of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from incidents of short circuit failures of certain AC contactors located in the avionics bay. We are proposing this AD to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. 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: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7311; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0215; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-216-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 August 14, 2006, we issued AD 2006-17-14, amendment 39-14735 (71 FR 49337, August 23, 2006), for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That AD requires inspecting contactors 1K4XD, 2K4XD, and K4XA to determine the type of terminal base plate, and applying sealant on the terminal base plates, if necessary. That AD resulted from incidents of short circuit failures of certain alternating current
(AC)contactors located in the avionics bay. We issued that AD to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2006-17-14 explains that we consider the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, Revision B, dated February 16, 2007. The service bulletin describes the following actions, depending on the airplane configuration: • Doing a visual inspection to determine if AC utility bus contactors 1K4XD and 2K4XD, part number (P/N) D-18ZZA, and the AC service bus contactor K4XA, P/N D-7GRZ, have a terminal base plate made from non-G9 melamine material (Ultem 2200 material or black in color), and doing applicable corrective actions. The corrective actions include replacing damaged terminal lugs with new lugs, repairing or replacing damaged wire with new wire, and replacing a certain AC service or utility bus contactor with a new one; as applicable. • Changing the service bulletin number on the mounting tray of the contactors. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-17R1, dated May 30, 2007, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplanes are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-17-14 and would continue to require inspecting contactors 1K4XD, 2K4XD, and K4XA to determine the type of terminal base plate, and applying sealant on the terminal base plates if necessary. This proposed AD also would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, which would constitute terminating action for the requirements of this proposed AD. Change to Existing AD AD 2006-17-14 affects Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive and 8000 and subsequent. This proposed AD would limit the applicability to those airplanes having serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive and 8000 through 8070 inclusive. This change parallels the applicability of the Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-17R1. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection (required by AD 2006-17-14) 3 $80 $240 739 $177,360. New proposed actions (depending on the airplane configuration) 1 or 2 80 $80 or $160 739 Between $59,120 and $118,240. 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 39-14735 (71 FR 49337, August 23, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2007-0215; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-216-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 21, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-17-14. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 through 8070 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from incidents of short circuit failures of certain alternating current
(AC)contactors located in the avionics bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2006-17-14 Inspection and Corrective Action
(f)Within 800 flight hours or four months after September 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-17-14), whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of AC bus contactors 1K4XD and 2K4XD, part number (P/N) D-18ZZA, and the bus contactor K4XA, P/N D-7GRZ, to determine which contactors have an Ultem 2200 terminal base plate (i.e., the plate is made from a black molded thermal plastic material), and apply RTV sealant to the terminal base plate, as applicable, by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006. Do all applicable applications of sealant before further flight. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Previous Actions Accomplished According to Other Service Information
(g)Actions accomplished before September 7, 2006, in accordance with Bombardier Drawing Number K601R50180, dated June 2, 2006; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, dated June 27, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Inspection and Corrective Action
(h)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection, reidentification, and corrective actions, as applicable, by doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, Revision B, dated February 16, 2007. Do the applicable corrective action before further flight. Accomplishment of these actions constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Parts Installation
(i)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any AC contactor 1K4XD, 2K4XD, or K4XA, having a non-G9 melamine terminal base plate, on any airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(k)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-17R1, dated May 30, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22726 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0213; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-233-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 Airplanes, and Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Several cases have been reported where the pilot, co-pilot or observer utility light system has failed, resulting in a burning smell within the cockpit. An investigation has revealed that, due to the orientation and location of the carbon molded potentiometers used to control the intensity of the light, the potentiometers can fail and overheat in such a way that burning of the ceiling panel and the associated insulation blanket could occur. This could lead to the presence of smoke in the cockpit, requiring that the pilots carry out the appropriate emergency procedure. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7311; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0213; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-233-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-11, dated August 9, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Several cases have been reported where the pilot, co-pilot or observer utility light system has failed, resulting in a burning smell within the cockpit. An investigation has revealed that, due to the orientation and location of the carbon molded potentiometers used to control the intensity of the light, the potentiometers can fail and overheat in such a way that burning of the ceiling panel and the associated insulation blanket could occur. This could lead to the presence of smoke in the cockpit, requiring that the pilots carry out the appropriate emergency procedure. Corrective actions include replacing the affected carbon molded resistive element potentiometers with wire-wound type potentiometers, for the pilot, co-pilot, and, if applicable, observer utility lights. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletins 8-33-53, Revision A; and 84-33-10, Revision A; both dated March 14, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 186 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $44,640, or $240 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-0213; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-233-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by December 21, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes, serial numbers 003 through 639; and Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes, serial numbers 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4149; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 33: Lights. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Several cases have been reported where the pilot, co-pilot or observer utility light system has failed, resulting in a burning smell within the cockpit. An investigation has revealed that, due to the orientation and location of the carbon molded potentiometers used to control the intensity of the light, the potentiometers can fail and overheat in such a way that burning of the ceiling panel and the associated insulation blanket could occur. This could lead to the presence of smoke in the cockpit, requiring that the pilots carry out the appropriate emergency procedure. Corrective actions include replacing the affected carbon molded resistive element potentiometers with wire-wound type potentiometers, for the pilot, co-pilot, and, if applicable, observer utility lights. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)For Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes: Install Bombardier Modsum 8Q101603 to replace the affected carbon molded resistive element potentiometers with wire-wound type potentiometers, for both the pilot and co-pilot utility lights, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-53, Revision A, dated March 14, 2007.
(2)For Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes: Install Bombardier Modsum 4-126381 to replace the affected carbon molded resistive element potentiometers with wire-wound type potentiometers, for the pilot, co-pilot, and observer utility lights, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-33-10, Revision A, dated March 14, 2007.
(3)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-53 or 84-33-10, both dated December 1, 2006, as applicable, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7311; fax
(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-11, dated August 9, 2007; Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-33-53, Revision A, dated March 14, 2007; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-33-10, Revision A, dated March 14, 2007; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22728 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0214; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-224-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 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 McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing an additional support bracket for the gray water drain hose, replacing the screw of the support bracket with a new screw for the potable water supply hose, installing a spacer, doing a detailed inspection to detect interference or wear damage on hoses, lines and/or cables, and doing corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of interference between the potable water supply hose and/or gray water drain hose at the aft lavatories with the fuel line and/or power feeder cables of the auxiliary power unit
(APU)located below the aft cabin floor. We are proposing this AD to prevent interference and chafing between the potable water supply hose and/or gray water hose with the fuel line and/or power feeder cables of the APU, which may cause arcing and sparking, and/or fuel leaking, and consequent fire or explosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 7, 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: Ken Sujishi, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety/Mechanical and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5353; 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-2007-0214; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-224-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 of interference between the potable water supply hose and/or gray water drain hose at the aft lavatories with the fuel line and/or power feeder cables of the auxiliary power unit
(APU)located below the aft cabin floor, on McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. A production quality line check determined that, due to a manufacturing process error, airplanes were delivered with a potable water drain hose that does not conform to design specifications. As a result, the potable water supply hose and/or gray water hose causes chafing with the fuel line and/or power feeder cables of the APU. These conditions, if not corrected, may cause arcing and sparking, and/or fuel leaking, and consequent fire or explosion. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-38A0004, Revision 1, dated August 15, 2007. The service bulletin describes the following procedures: • Installing an additional support bracket for the gray water drain hose. • Replacing the screw of the support bracket of the potable water supply hose with a new screw and installing a spacer. • Doing detailed inspections to detect interference or wear damage of the potable water supply hose, gray water drain hose, and fuel lines and power feeder cables of the auxiliary power unit. • Doing applicable corrective actions. The corrective actions include repairing power feeder cables and fuel lines of the APU, and contacting Boeing for repair, 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 Although the service bulletin specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions using a method approved by the FAA. Costs of Compliance There are about 123 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 95 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 70 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to the operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $532,000, or $5,600 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0214; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-224-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 7, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-38A0004, Revision 1, dated August 15, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of interference between the potable water supply hose and/or gray water drain hose at the aft lavatories with the fuel line and/or power feeder cables of the auxiliary power unit
(APU)located below the aft cabin floor. We are issuing this AD to prevent interference and chafing between the potable water supply hose and/or gray water hose with the fuel line and/or power feeder cables of the APU, which may cause arcing and sparking, and/or fuel leaking, and consequent fire or explosion. 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. Installations, Replacements, Inspections, and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 27 months after the effective date of this AD, do the installations, replacement, inspections, and applicable corrective actions by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-38A0004, Revision 1, dated August 15, 2007; except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. The applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight.
(g)If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-38A0004, Revision 1, dated August 15, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate Before further flight, repair the discrepancy in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. 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. 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 717-38A0004, dated December 6, 2006, is considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22727 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0212; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-237-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; SAAB Model SF340A and Model 340B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1112; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0212; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-237-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0169, dated June 15, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive, which renders mandatory the modification [3163] to separate wiring of Fuel Quantity Indication System [FQIS], is a consequence of the design review. Modification 3163 includes re-routing of existing wiring to the FQIS, installing new wires with shields to the FQIS, and operational and functional tests of the FQIS. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 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 a 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. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Saab has issued Service Bulletin 340-28-025, dated February 26, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 218 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 50 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,500 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,199,000, or $5,500 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **SAAB Aircraft AB:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0212; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-237-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by December 21, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to SAAB Model SF340A and Model 340B airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive, which renders mandatory the modification [3163] to separate wiring of Fuel Quantity Indication System [FQIS], is a consequence of the design review. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Modification 3163 includes re-routing of existing wiring to the FQIS, installing new wires with shields to the FQIS, and operational and functional test of the FQIS. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do modification 3163 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-025, dated February 26, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1112; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0169, dated June 15, 2007, and Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-025, dated February 26, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-22729 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 922 Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Rule Limiting Discharges From Vessels in Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA)National Marine Sanctuary Program
(NMSP)is preparing a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) to supplement and/or replace information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for the Joint Management Plan Review, the management plan review for the Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries. The SDEIS will analyze revisions to the proposed action that would in effect prohibit the following discharges within the sanctuaries: All sewage from vessels 300 gross registered tons
(GRT)or more with the capacity to hold sewage while within the sanctuary; and, in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, all graywater from vessels 300 GRT or more with the capacity to hold graywater while within the sanctuary. DATES: Because the NMSP has previously requested (64 FR 31528 and 71 FR 29096) and received extensive information from the public on issues to be addressed in the SDEIS, and because the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ)regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)do not require additional scoping for this SDEIS process (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)), the NMSP is not asking for further public scoping information and comment at this time. Upon release of the SDEIS the NMSP will provide a 45-day public review/comment period. ADDRESSES: Copies of the 2006 DEIS are available at NOAA offices located at 1 Bear Valley Rd., Point Reyes Station, CA; West Crissy Field on the Presidio, 991 Marine Drive, San Francisco, CA, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, California, and on the Web at *http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Morton at
(301)713-7264 or *sean.morton@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)has proposed draft revised management plans, revised designation documents, and revised regulations for the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS), Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS), and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). The proposed regulations would revise and provide greater clarity to existing regulations. In particular, NOAA proposed changes to prohibitions regarding “discharge and deposit” in the MBNMS, and prohibiting discharging or depositing most matter from cruise ships. On May 11, 2007 NOAA received a request from the California State Water Resources Control Board to prohibit discharges from certain vessels in national marine sanctuaries offshore California. In addition, on August 10, 2007, the California Coastal Commission voted to concur with the consistency finding the JMPR actions are consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Management Program, on the condition that NOAA revise the proposed discharge and deposit regulation to prohibit vessels of 300 gross registered tons
(GRT)or more from discharging sewage or graywater into the waters of the sanctuaries. After reviewing public comments on the proposed regulations, considering the California Coastal Commission's federal consistency review (per the Coastal Zone Management Act; 16 U.S.C. 1451 *et seq.* ), and further analyzing vessel discharge issues, NOAA decided to revise the CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS proposed discharge regulations to prohibit discharges of all sewage from vessels 300 gross registered tons
(GRT)or more with the capacity to hold sewage while within the sanctuary; and in the MBNMS limit the exception for graywater discharges to vessels less than 300 GRT and vessels 300 GRT or more without the capacity to hold graywater while within the MBNMS. The revised proposed regulations will include prohibitions satisfying the request from the State of California for the CBNMS, GFNMS, and MBNMS. The SDEIS, in conjunction with the concomitant supplemental proposed rule, will evaluate the revised proposed action and provide the public with an opportunity for additional review and comment. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 *et seq.* Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program. Dated: November 15, 2007. Elizabeth R. Scheffler, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. [FR Doc. E7-22710 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 150 RIN 3038-AC140 Revision of Federal Speculative Position Limits AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) periodically reviews the speculative position limits for certain agricultural commodities set out in Commission regulation 150.2 (“Federal speculative position limits”). In this regard, the Commission has reviewed the existing levels for Federal speculative position limits and is now proposing to increase these limits for all single-month and all-months-combined positions in all commodities except oats, based on the formula set out in Commission Regulation 150.5(c). In addition, the Commission is also proposing to aggregate traders' positions for purposes of ascertaining compliance with Federal speculative position limits when a designated contract market (“DCM”) lists for trading a futures contract that shares substantially identical terms with a Regulation 150.2-enumerated contract listed on another DCM, including a futures contract that is cash-settled based on the settlement prices for a futures contract that is already enumerated. The Commission is requesting comment on these rule amendments. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to David Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Comments also may be sent by facsimile to
(202)418-5521, or by electronic mail to *secretary@cftc.gov.* Reference should be made to “Proposed Revision of Federal Speculative Position Limits.” Comments may also be submitted by connecting to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* and following comment submission instructions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Heitman, Attorney, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, telephone
(202)418-5041, facsimile number
(202)418-5507, electronic mail *dheitman@cftc.gov;* or Martin Murray, Economist, Division of Market Oversight, telephone
(202)418-5276, facsimile number
(202)418-5507, electronic mail *mmurray@cftc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Introduction The Commission has long established and enforced speculative position limits for futures contracts on various agricultural commodities. The Commission periodically reviews these Federal speculative position limits, which are set out in Commission regulation 150.2. 1 In this regard, the Commission has reviewed the existing levels for Federal speculative position limits and is now proposing to increase these limits for all single-month and all-months-combined positions in all commodity markets enumerated in Commission regulation 150.2, except Chicago Board of Trade (“CBT”) Oats, based on the formula set out in Commission Regulation 150.5(c). In particular, the Commission is proposing to increase levels for single-month and all-months-combined positions for CBT Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Soybean Oil, and Soybean Meal; Minneapolis Grain Exchange
(MGE)Hard Red Spring Wheat; Kansas City Board of Trade
(KCBT)Hard Winter Wheat, and New York Board of Trade (NYBOT) Cotton No. 2. The spot month limits for all of these commodities would remain unchanged. In addition, the Commission is also proposing to aggregate traders' positions for purposes of ascertaining compliance with Federal speculative position limits when a DCM lists for trading a futures contract that shares substantially identical terms with a Regulation 150.2-enumerated contract listed on another DCM, including a futures contract that is cash-settled based on the settlement prices for a futures contract that is already enumerated. 1 Regulation 150.2 imposes three types of position limits for each specified contract: A spot month limit, a single-month limit, and an all-months-combined limit. The Commission most recently adopted amendments to levels for Federal speculative position limits in 2005 (see 70 FR 24705 May 11, 2005). B. Regulatory Framework Speculative position limits have been a tool for the regulation of the U.S. futures markets since the adoption of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. Section 4a(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act), 7 U.S.C. 6a(a), states that: Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery made on or subject to the rules of contract markets or derivatives transaction execution facilities causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity. Accordingly, section 4a(a) provides the Commission with the authority to: Fix such limits on the amounts of trading which may be done or positions which may be held by any person under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden. This longstanding statutory framework providing for Federal speculative position limits was supplemented with the passage of the Futures Trading Act of 1982, which acknowledged the role of exchanges in setting their own speculative position limits. The 1982 legislation also provided, under section 4a(e) of the Act, that limits set by exchanges and approved by the Commission were subject to Commission enforcement. Finally, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”) established designation criteria and core principles with which a DCM must comply to receive and maintain designation. Among these, Core Principle 5 in section 5(d) of the Act states: Position Limitations or Accountability—To reduce the potential threat of market manipulation or congestion, especially during trading in the delivery month, the board of trade shall adopt position limitations or position accountability for speculators, where necessary and appropriate. As outlined above, the regulatory structure is administered under a two-pronged framework. Under the first prong, the Commission establishes and enforces speculative position limits for futures contracts on a limited group of agricultural commodities. These Federal speculative position limits are enumerated in Commission regulation 150.2, and apply to the following futures and option markets: CBT Corn, Oats, Soybeans, Wheat, Soybean Oil, and Soybean Meal; MGE Hard Red Spring Wheat; NYBOT Cotton No. 2; and KCBT Hard Winter Wheat. Under the second prong, individual DCMs establish and enforce their own speculative position limits or position accountability provisions, subject to Commission oversight and separate authority to enforce exchange-set speculative position limits approved by the Commission. Thus, responsibility for enforcement of speculative position limits is shared by the Commission and the DCMs. 2 2 Provisions regarding the establishment of exchange-set speculative position limits were originally set forth in CFTC regulation 1.61. In 1999, the Commission simplified and reorganized its rules by relocating the substance of regulation 1.61's requirements to part 150 of the Commission's rules, thereby incorporating within part 150 provisions for both Federal speculative position limits and exchange-set speculative position limits (see 64 FR 24038, May 5, 1999). Section 4a(e) of the Act provides that a violation of a speculative position limit set by a Commission-approved exchange rule is also a violation of the Act. Thus, the Commission can enforce directly violations of exchange-set speculative position limits as well as those provided under Commission rules. II. Commission Speculative Position Limit Levels The Commission is proposing several revisions to the Federal speculative position limit levels found in regulation 150.2 based upon its experience in administering these limits and the open interest formula found in Commission Regulation 150.5. Under the proposed revisions, spot month limits would remain unchanged from the current levels, but every single-month and all-months-combined position limit, except for CBT Oats, would be increased based upon open interest data for the most recent calendar year (2006). For all-months-combined levels, the Commission proposes to amend the limits set forth in Regulation 150.2 to the maximum levels permitted under the open interest formula, and to adjust the single month limits to reflect the existing ratio of single month to all-months-combined levels. With respect to the single month limits, a strict application of the open interest formula contained in regulation 150.5 would have resulted in somewhat lower single month limits for some commodities and higher limits for others than those proposed below. However, the Commission believes that maintaining the existing ratios between single-month and all-months-combined speculative position limit levels is of benefit to the marketplace, and thus the Commission is proposing to establish single-month limits that are consistent with that approach. 3 The open interest formula does not justify an increase in the CBT Oats single month or all-months-combined limits, and the Commission does not propose any change in their levels at this time. 3 The Commission used this more flexible approach when it last revised the Federal speculative position limits in 2005 ( *See* 70 FR 24705, May 11, 2005). In addition, with respect to the MGE and KCBT Wheat contracts, the Commission proposes to maintain parity with the levels proposed for CBT Wheat rather than establish different limits based on the open interest formula for each contract. The Commission first adopted this parity approach in an action to revise position limits in 1993. 4 At that time the Commission concluded that the breadth and liquidity of the cash markets underlying the KCBT and MGE Wheat contracts justified setting these limits at parity with little risk of regulatory harm from such action. 5 The Commission continues to believe that the breadth and liquidity of underlying cash markets, as well as continued growth in open interest, for the KCBT and MGE Wheat contracts support maintenance of these speculative position limit levels at parity with one another. 6 4 *See* 58 FR 17973 (April 7, 1993). 5 *Id.* at 17979. 6 The Commission maintained parity between the CBT, MGE, and KCBT wheat contracts when it last revised the Federal speculative position limits in May, 2005. Finally, the Commission is also proposing to aggregate traders' positions for purposes of ascertaining compliance with Federal speculative position limits when a DCM lists for trading a futures contract that shares substantially identical terms with a Regulation 150.2-enumerated contract listed on another DCM, including a futures contract that is cash-settled based on the settlement prices for a futures contract that is already enumerated. In this regard, when the Commission last amended regulation 150.2, it clarified its practice of aggregating traders' positions when a single DCM lists for trading two or more contracts with substantially identical terms based on the same underlying commodity characteristics, such as the CBT Corn and Mini-Corn futures contracts. 7 At the time it adopted those clarifying amendments, the Commission noted, “that should a DCM list a contract that shared substantially identical terms with a Regulation 150.2-enumerated contract listed on another DCM, the Commission could consider at that time whether to amend regulation 150.2 to likewise apply Federal limits to the newly-listed contract.” Since then, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) has listed for trading a Cotton futures contract that is cash-settled based on the settlement price for the NYBOT Cotton No. 2 futures contract. The Commission believes that aggregation of traders' positions in such circumstances is necessary to protect the integrity of the existing limits by removing the ability of a trader to flout the limits by taking a position in the non-encumbered market. Based on the criteria noted above, the Commission is proposing the following changes to the Federal speculative position limits (additions are underlined, and deletions are struck through). 7 70 FR 24705, (May 11, 2005). EP21NO07.021 III. Related Matters A. Cost Benefit Analysis Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation under the Act. By its terms, section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, section 15(a) requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of the subject rule. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of the proposed rule shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern:
(1)Protection of market participants and the public;
(2)efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets;
(3)price discovery;
(4)sound risk management practices; and
(5)other public interest considerations. The Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule amendments impose limited additional costs in terms of reporting requirements, particularly since entities trading in or holding large positions, which either approach or meet the speculative limits of the rules herein, already file large trader reports with the Commission. Moreover, the amendments proposed herein would increase Federal speculative position limits for some commodities and, to that extent, reduce the compliance costs associated with these speculative position limits. The countervailing benefits to any additional costs are that the continued inclusion of appropriate speculative limits will help to ensure the maintenance of competitive and efficient markets, protect the price discovery and risk shifting functions of those markets, and protect market participants and the public interest. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires federal agencies, in proposing rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small businesses. The Commission believes that the proposed rule amendments to raise Commission speculative position limits would only impact large traders. The Commission has previously determined that large traders are not small entities for purposes of the RFA. 8 Therefore, the Acting Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action taken herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission also notes in this regard that the proposed rules will raise speculative limit levels and thereby reduce the regulatory burden on all affected entities. 8 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982). C. Paperwork Reduction Act When publishing proposed rules, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Commission, through this rule proposal, solicits public comment to:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(2)evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The Commission has submitted the proposed rule and its associated information collection requirements to the Office of Management and Budget. The proposed rule is part of two approved information collections. The burdens associated with these rules are as follows: Collection Number [3038-0009] *Average burden hours per response:* 3. *Number of respondents:* 2946. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. Collection Number [3038-0013] *Average burden hours per response:* 3. *Number of respondents:* 9. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 150 Agricultural commodities, Bona fide hedge positions, Position limits, Spread exemptions. In consideration of the foregoing, pursuant to the authority contained in the Commodity Exchange Act, the Commission hereby proposes to amend part 150 of chapter I of title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 150—LIMITS ON POSITIONS 1. The authority citation for part 150 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6a, 6c, and 12a(5), as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 2. Section 150.2 is revised to read as follows: § 150.2 Position limits. No person may hold or control positions, separately or in combination, net long or net short, for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery or, on a futures-equivalent basis, options thereon, in excess of the following: Speculative Position Limits 1 [In contract units] Contract Spot month Single month All months Chicago Board of Trade Corn and Mini-Corn 2 600 26,000 42,400 Oats 600 1,400 2,000 Soybeans and Mini-Soybeans 2 600 8,600 13,300 Wheat and Mini-Wheat 2 600 11,100 14,500 Soybean Oil 540 6,600 8,600 Soybean Meal 720 5,500 7,100 Minneapolis Grain Exchange Hard Red Spring Wheat 600 11,100 14,500 New York Board of Trade Cotton No. 2 300 5,300 7,300 Kansas City Board of Trade Hard Winter Wheat 600 11,100 14,500 1 For purposes of compliance with these limits, positions in a futures contract that shares substantially identical terms with a contract market enumerated herein, including a futures contract that is cash-settled based on the settlement price of an enumerated contract market, shall be aggregated with positions in the enumerated contract market. 2 For purposes of compliance with these limits, positions in the regular-sized and mini-sized contracts shall be aggregated. Issued by the Commission this November 15, 2007, in Washington, DC. David Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-22681 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 19 CFR Part 4 [USCBP-2007-0098] Hawaiian Coastwise Cruises AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Proposed interpretation; solicitation of comments. SUMMARY: This document proposes new criteria to be used by Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to determine whether non-coastwise-qualified vessels are in violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act
(PVSA)when engaging in cruise itineraries in which passengers board at a U.S. port, the vessel calls at several Hawaiian ports, and then the vessel proceeds to a foreign port or ports for a brief period, before ultimately returning to the original U.S. port of embarkation where the passengers disembark to complete their cruise. CBP believes these itineraries are contrary to the PVSA because it appears that the primary objective of the foreign stop is evasion of the PVSA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen E. Vereb, Cargo Security, Carriers & Immigration Branch, Office of International Trade,
(202)572-8730. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Border Security Regulations Branch, Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed interpretation by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed interpretation. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed interpretation. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the proposed interpretation, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this proposed interpretation. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Submitted comments may also be inspected on regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted documents should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at
(202)572-8768. II. Background The maritime cabotage law governing the transportation of passengers was first established by section 8 of the Passenger Vessel Services Act of June 19, 1886 (the “PVSA”), 24 Stat. 81; as amended by section 2 of the Act of February 17, 1898, 30 Stat. 248, formerly codified at 46 U.S.C. App. 289 (now codified at 46 U.S.C. 55103). That statute provided that no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $200 (now $300, as promulgated in T.D. 03-11 pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note) for each passenger so transported and landed. The intent of the maritime cabotage laws, including the PVSA, was to provide a “legal structure that guarantees a coastwise monopoly to American shipping and thereby promotes development of the American merchant marine.” *Autolog Corp.* v. *Regan,* 731 F.2d 25, 28 (DC Cir. 1984); *see also The Granada,* 35 F.Supp. 892, 893, 1940 AMC 1601 (DC Pa 1940) (stating that the legislative aim of section 289 [now 55102] was the creation of a practical monopoly of coastwise and domestic shipping business for United States ships). In other words, the PVSA was enacted to advance the United States merchant marine and fleet by restricting the use of foreign-owned/flagged passenger vessels in United States territorial waters. Passenger vessel transportation between United States ports has historically been viewed to be part of the coastwise trade after the enactment of the PVSA. This view is premised on the concepts of continuity of the voyage and whether its *intended purpose or objective* was coastwise transportation. In other words, the PVSA was held to be violated if the coastwise movement was continuous or if the purpose of the trip was a coastwise voyage. (See 18 O.A.G. 445, September 4, 1886; 28 O.A.G. 204, February 16, 1910; 29 O.A.G. 318, February 12, 1912; 30 O.A.G. 44, February 1, 1913; 34 O.A.G. 340, December 24, 1924; and 36 O.A.G. 352, August 13, 1930.) The CBP regulations promulgated pursuant to the PVSA are found at section 4.80a of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 4.80a) and are reflective of the above cited Office of the Attorney General decisions. These regulations provide, among other things, that a non-coastwise-qualified vessel which “embarks” a passenger at a port in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws (a “coastwise port”) will be deemed to have landed that passenger in violation of the PVSA if the passenger “disembarks” at a different coastwise port on a voyage to one or more coastwise ports and a “nearby foreign port or ports” (as defined in 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(2); *see also* 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(2)). The terms “embark” and “disembark” are words of art which are defined as going on board a vessel for the duration of a specific voyage, and leaving a vessel at the conclusion of a specific voyage, respectively. ( *See* 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(4).) The references in section 4.80a to “nearby foreign ports” (defined in 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(2)) are the results of attempts by CBP to apply an Office of the Attorney General's opinion dated February 26, 1910 (28 O.A.G. 204). In that case, a foreign-flag vessel transported 615 passengers on a voyage around the world, beginning in New York and concluding in San Francisco. The Attorney General opined that since the primary object of the voyage was to visit various parts of the world on a pleasure tour returning home via California, and not to be transported in domestic commerce, the transportation was not in violation of the PVSA. The 1910 Attorney General's opinion was extended to voyages that included foreign ports other than nearby foreign ports. ( *See* Treasury Decision (T.D.) 68-285 (33 FR 16558), November 14, 1968.) However, voyages solely to one or more coastwise ports have always been considered predominantly coastwise. Therefore non-coastwise-qualified vessels engaging in such a voyage where passengers temporarily go ashore at a coastwise port have been deemed to have violated the PVSA. III. Current Law and Policy Pursuant to Public Law 109-304, 120 Stat. 1632, enacted on October 6, 2006, Title 46, United States Code, was substantially reorganized and recodified. Consequently, the PVSA is now codified at 46 U.S.C. 55103 and provides that no vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, either directly or by way of a foreign port, under a penalty of $300 for each person so transported and landed, except one that:
(1)Is wholly owned by citizens of the United States for purposes of engaging in the coastwise trade; and
(2)has been issued a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement or is exempt from documentation but would otherwise be eligible for such a certificate and endorsement. In 2003, Congress enacted Public Law 108-7, Division B, Title II, Section 211, for the purpose of revitalizing the oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise industry in Hawaii (the “2003 Act”). Three oceangoing U.S.-flag cruise ships, PRIDE OF ALOHA, PRIDE OF AMERICA and PRIDE OF HAWAII, were documented with coastwise privileges pursuant to the 2003 Act. These vessels entered regular service in Hawaii in 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, and pursuant to the express language of the 2003 Act, are limited in their operation to providing “* * * regular service transporting passengers between or among the islands of Hawaii * * *” The CBP regulations promulgated pursuant to the PVSA are set forth in 19 CFR 4.80a and have remained unchanged throughout both the recodification of Title 46 of the United States Code and the enactment of the 2003 Act. They provide that a violation of the PVSA occurs when passengers “embark” (board a vessel for the duration of a voyage) a non-coastwise-qualified vessel at one U.S. port, and “disembark” (leave the vessel at the conclusion of a voyage) at a different U.S. port, unless they proceed with the vessel to a “distant foreign port” (i.e., any port not considered a “nearby foreign port” which is defined as any port located in North America, Central America, Bermuda, or the West Indies including the Bahamas). Currently, these regulations do not contain specific criteria for non-coastwise-qualified vessels on itineraries including U.S. ports and either “nearby” or “distant” foreign ports in order for such foreign port calls to be compliant with the PVSA. To reiterate, the applicable CBP regulations provide that the PVSA is violated when a non-coastwise-qualified vessel transports a passenger on a voyage solely to one or more coastwise ports and the passenger disembarks or goes ashore temporarily at a coastwise port. (19 CFR 4.80a(b)(1).) Furthermore, a violation of the PVSA also occurs when a non-coastwise-qualified vessel transports a passenger on a voyage to one or more coastwise ports and a nearby foreign port or ports (but no other foreign port) and the passenger disembarks at a coastwise port other than the port of embarkation. (19 CFR 4.80a(b)(2).) However, there is no violation of the PVSA when a passenger is on a voyage to one or more coastwise ports and a distant foreign port or ports (whether or not the voyage includes a nearby foreign port or ports) and the passenger disembarks at a coastwise port, provided the passenger has proceeded with the vessel to a distant foreign port. (19 CFR 4.80a(b)(3).) IV. Request From MARAD To Provide Guidance The U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) has requested that CBP take action to ensure enforcement of the PVSA. MARAD has asked CBP to address the recent activities of foreign-flag passenger vessels in the Hawaiian Islands that are imposing economic hardship on the operations of coastwise-qualified cruise ship operators. In April of 2007, the operator of the three U.S.-flag cruise vessels operating solely in Hawaii pursuant to the 2003 Act announced their intent to withdraw the PRIDE OF HAWAII from the Hawaii market and redeploy her to Europe. The operator intends to re-flag the vessel to foreign registry, directly resulting in the loss of over 1,100 crewmember jobs. The primary reason cited for this decision is the rapid increase in foreign-flag competition entering the Hawaii market from the West Coast. This competition is evidenced in published cruise itineraries of foreign-flag carriers offering a variety of round trip cruises that depart from a U.S. port, call at several Hawaiian ports, then proceed to Ensenada, Mexico for a brief period, usually in the early morning, and ultimately return to the original U.S. port of embarkation where the passengers disembark to complete their cruise. These cruises are often marketed as “Hawaii cruises” and except for the brief stop in the nearby foreign port of Ensenada, are purely coastwise in nature. It is these cruise itineraries that pose an imminent threat to the two remaining U.S.-flagged, coastwise endorsed passenger vessels that, pursuant to the 2003 Act, are currently engaging in cruise itineraries that include only ports of call within the Hawaiian Islands. V. Preliminary Notice In response to MARAD's concerns, CBP sent letters to two carriers known to operate the itineraries in question, as well as to the Cruise Lines International Association, Inc., stating that CBP believes that these itineraries are contrary to the PVSA because it appears that the primary objective of the Ensenada stop is evasion of the PVSA. The letters further indicated that CBP is taking steps to publish this position. VI. CBP's Proposed Interpretive Rule Accordingly, in this document, CBP is proposing to provide that cruise itineraries for non-qualified coastwise vessels which allow passengers to board at a U.S. port, call at several Hawaiian ports, proceed to a foreign port or ports for a brief period, and then ultimately return to the original U.S. port of embarkation for disembarkation are not consistent with the PVSA and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Specifically, CBP interprets a voyage to be “solely to one or more coastwise ports” even where it stops at a foreign port, unless the stop at the foreign port is a legitimate object of the cruise. CBP will presume that a stop at a foreign port is not a legitimate object of the cruise unless:
(1)The stop lasts at least 48 hours at the foreign port;
(2)The amount of time at the foreign port is more than 50 percent of the total amount of time at the U.S. ports of call; and
(3)The passengers are permitted to go ashore temporarily at the foreign port. Accordingly, CBP proposes to adopt an interpretive rule under which it will presume that any cruise itinerary that does not include a foreign port call that satisfies each of these three criteria constitutes coastwise transportation of passengers in violation of 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(1). Dated: November 16, 2007. W. Ralph Basham, Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection. [FR Doc. E7-22788 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 76] RIN 1513-AB49 Proposed Establishment of the Leona Valley Viticultural Area (2007R-281P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to establish the 13.4 square mile “Leona Valley” viticultural area in the northeast part of Los Angeles County, California. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed addition to our regulations. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments on this notice to one of the following addresses: • *http://www.regulations.gov* (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow the instructions for submitting comments); or • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. You may view copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any comments we receive about this proposal at *http://www.regulations.gov* under Docket No. 2007-0066. You also may view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps, or other supporting materials, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; phone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers the regulations promulgated under the FAA Act. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Leona Valley Petition Mr. Ralph Jens Carter submitted a petition for the 13.4 square mile Leona Valley viticultural area on behalf of the Antelope Valley Winegrowers Association, the Leona Valley Winery, and Donato Vineyards. The area currently includes 20 acres of vineyards, and more acreage for wine grape growing is under development. The proposed boundary line defines an area where viticulture is already established or has potential for establishment. Consequently, the area defined is limited to the valley floor and side slopes. The distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area include the physical characteristics of the San Andreas Fault system, the fault-controlled Leona Valley, and the surrounding, high-elevation mountains. The climate, geology, and soils distinguish the proposed viticultural area from areas outside of the proposed boundary line. Name Evidence According to the petitioner, the name “Leona” derives from an early rancher named Miguel Leonis, and in the 1880s, a homesteader from Nebraska called the area “Leona Valley.” The “Leona Valley” name identifies a valley, a town within the valley, a ranch (the Leona Valley Ranch), and a festival (the annual Leona Valley Cherry Festival). The petitioner provides maps that show that the Leona Valley is located in the northeast part of Los Angeles County, California. The “Leona Valley” name appears on the USGS Ritter Ridge, Sleepy Valley, and Del Sur quadrangle maps, which the petitioner uses to define the boundary line of the proposed viticultural area. The Sleepy Valley map also identifies a small town in the valley as “Leona Valley.” A recent atlas identifies both a valley and small town within the proposed viticultural area as “Leona Valley” (The DeLorme Southern and Central California Atlas and Gazetteer, 2005, page 79). Boundary Evidence According to the petitioner, and as evidenced by the written boundary description and the USGS Sleepy Valley quadrangle map, the proposed viticultural area includes the town and valley which are both named “Leona Valley.” The proposed boundary line borders the Angeles National Forest to the west and the Antelope Valley and the Mojave Desert to the northeast. Mountains and hills surround all sides of the valley. The floor and side slopes of the Leona Valley influence the shape of the proposed viticultural area, which includes vineyards in remote, but suitable, areas, but excludes steep slopes where erosion is a hazard. According to the petitioner, historically, the Native American Shoshone Tribe lived as hunters and gatherers in the Leona Valley area. In the mid-1800s, when the Shoshone departed the area, immigrants from Spain and Mexico started cattle ranching. During the 1880s, homesteaders from Nebraska, France, and Germany divided the ranches into smaller parcels for farms. In the early 1900s the John Ritter family began to plant grapes in the Leona Valley area. The Ritter family winery, Belvino Vineyards, aged wine in a cave for at least 5 years before bottling and selling the wine on national and international markets. During Prohibition, the Ritters ceased producing wine. The petitioner notes that local residents report that zinfandel and mission vines planted in the early 1900s are still growing. Currently, the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area contains 20 acres of commercial wine grape production on David Reynolds' Leona Valley Winery and an acreage of pinot noir grapes on land owned by Donato Vineyards. Donato Vineyards, at the southeast end of the Leona Valley, plans to develop another 10 acres for growing wine grapes and to start producing wine in 2007-8. Distinguishing Features The petitioner states that the distinguishing features of the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area consist of climate, physical features, geology, and soils. As evidence of many of the distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area, the petitioner cites the Soil Survey of the Antelope Valley Area, California (United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, 1970). Climate The soil survey designates the southern and western parts of the Antelope Valley and the Leona Valley, as Major Land Resource Area
(MLRA)19, Southern California Coastal Plain. The petitioner explains that MLRA 19 has a distinctive combination of climate, soils, and mild temperatures, including an annual, 210- to 300-day frost-free period. Also, MLRA 19 is hot and dry in summer and cool and moist in winter. It is suitable to a wide variety of field, fruit, and nut crops. Annual precipitation ranges from 9 to 16 inches in MLRA 19, and irrigation use is routine. According to the soil survey, the land management techniques and cropping systems used in MLRA 19 are different from those used in the adjacent MLRA 30, Mojave Basin and Range, and MLRA 20, Southern California Mountains. The petitioner also cites the Sunset Western Garden Book, which classifies the Leona Valley area as Zone No. 18, Southern California's Interior Valleys (Sunset Publishing Corporation, Menlo Park, California, 1995). In this zone the continental air mass is a major influence on climate, and the Pacific Ocean determines the climate in the valley only about 15 percent of the time. According to the petitioner, annual precipitation within the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area ranges from 9 to 12 inches. In the Mojave Desert to the east of the Leona Valley, the range is only 4 to 9 inches. In the mountainous areas surrounding Leona Valley to the south, west, and north, the range is between 12 and 20 inches. The petitioner states that the growing season of the proposed viticultural area has warm days and cool nights. The cool nights slow the ripening of the grapes, helping the grapes to retain their natural acidity. Air drainage off the slopes of the hills and mountains helps prevent spring frost damage to grapes. The petitioner submitted comparative data based on the Winkler Climate Classification System. In the Winkler climate classification system, heat accumulation per year defines climatic regions. As a measurement of heat accumulation during the growing season, 1 degree day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth; see “General Viticulture,” by Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1974. Climatic region I has less than 2,500 degree days per year; region II, 2,501 to 3,000; region III, 3,001 to 3,500; region IV, 3,501 to 4,000; and region V, 4,001 or more. The petitioner states that the air temperatures during the growing season in the proposed viticultural area have an average heat summation of 4,060 degree days, which falls into the low range of region V. The annual heat summation totals of the regions in and around the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area are listed in the table below. Region Relative position with reference to Leona Valley Average annual heat summation in degree days/climatic region Leona Valley Within 4,060 (low region V). Sandberg 25 miles west-northwest 3,370 (mid region III). Tehachapi 38 miles north-northwest 2,900 (high region II). Lancaster 15 miles northeast 4,600 (high region V). Physical Features According to USGS maps of the region, the Leona Valley is a low, sloping landform with elevations between 2,932 and 3,800 feet. It is surrounded by higher hills, Portal Ridge, Ritter Ridge, Sierra Pelona, and the mountains of the Angeles National Forest, the highest of which has an elevation of 4,215 feet. According to the petitioner, the Leona Valley has isolated knolls of significantly different elevations and, in places, narrows to a width of a mile. The petitioner explains that the San Andreas Fault, a major continental fault system, is a significant distinguishing feature of the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area. As shown on the USGS maps of the region, the fault and its tributary faults in the Leona Valley trend southeast to northwest. The petitioner explains that the Leona Valley formed either when two parallel fault lines lifted mountains beside a drop-down area or when erosion over thousands of years caused a deep dissection in the fault zone. Seismic movement along the fault line has formed ridges and isolated hills and exposed various rocks. The petitioner states that ground water provides a plentiful supply of water for vineyard irrigation within the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area. As shown on the Ritter Ridge, Sleepy Valley, and Del Sur quadrangle USGS maps, many agricultural wells tap into the ground water. Geology The petitioner explains that relative displacement and a lack of continuity of the rocks on either side of the San Andreas Fault contribute to the complexity, weakening, and erosion of the parent rock. Near some portions of the fault the varying sedimentary strata determine the geologic formation. Citing a California Department of Conservation Geologic Map, the petitioner notes that the mostly nonmarine and unconsolidated alluvium on the Leona Valley floor is from the Quaternary Period, or about 2 million years old or less. The various types of schist, quartz, granite, and a complex of mixed, Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks in the valley contrast with the surrounding hills, which formed on Paleozoic or Mesozoic strata, 65 to 280 million years ago. Soils The petitioner explains that a fault increases the variety of rock exposed on the surface and eventually results in the formation of a greater variety of soil textures. Thus, the San Andreas fault influenced the properties and mineralogy of the soils in the Leona Valley. The petitioner states that the soils on the Leona Valley floor differ from those beyond the boundary line of the proposed viticultural area. The surface layer of the soils in the Leona Valley formed in a mixture of soil material that originated on the surrounding mountains and decayed organic matter. Multiple rock types on the valley floor were the parent material of alluvial soils that have diverse mineralogy and texture. The soils on the valley floor are deep and moderately drained; those on the surrounding hills are shallow and excessively well drained. According to the soil survey, the soils of the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area are mainly the Hanford-Ramona-Greenfield association on alluvial fans and terraces. This association consists of nearly level to moderately steep, well drained, very deep soils that have a surface layer of loamy sand to loam. Hanford soils are well drained. They do not have a hardpan or a compacted clay layer, and are easily worked. Included in this association are some areas of deep, poorly drained Chino loam, which does not have a seasonal high water table. The petitioner explains that to control wetness in poorly drained areas, growers may install artificial drainage or plant competing crops. The petitioner explains that the Vista-Amagora association is among the dominant soils at higher elevations outside the boundary line of the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area. This association consists of strongly sloping to steep, well drained to excessively drained soils that have a surface layer of coarse sandy loam. South of the valley, in smaller areas, is the Anaverde-Godde association. It consists of moderately steep or steep, well drained soils that have a surface layer of sandy loam or loam. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, and we list them below in the proposed regulatory text. TTB Determination TTB concludes that this petition to establish the 13.4 square mile Leona Valley viticultural area merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its name, “Leona Valley,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Leona Valley” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. On the other hand, we do not believe that the “Leona” part of the proposed viticultural area name, standing alone, should have viticultural significance if the new area is established. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full “Leona Valley” name as a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin a viticultural area name or other term specified as being viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name or other term as an appellation of origin and that name or other term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or other term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a new label or a previously approved label uses the name “Leona Valley” for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to revocation, upon the effective date of the approval of the Leona Valley viticultural area. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should establish the proposed viticultural area. We are also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area on wine labels that include the words “Leona Valley” as discussed above under “Impact on Current Wine Labels,” we are particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any negative economic impact that approval of the proposed viticultural area will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. We are also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid any conflicts, for example by adopting a modified or different name for the viticultural area. Although TTB believes that only the full “Leona Valley” name should be considered to have viticultural significance upon establishment of the proposed new viticultural area, we also invite comments from those who believe that “Leona” standing alone would have viticultural significance upon establishment of the area. Comments in this regard should include documentation or other information supporting the conclusion that use of “Leona” on a wine label could cause consumers and vintners to attribute to the wine in question the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of wine made from grapes grown in the proposed Leona Valley viticultural area. Submitting Comments You may submit comments on this notice by one of the following two methods: • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:* To submit a comment on this notice using the online Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit *http://www.regulations.gov* and select “Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau” from the agency drop-down menu and click “Submit.” In the resulting docket list, click the “Add Comments” icon for Docket No. 2007-0066 and complete the resulting comment form. You may attach supplemental files to your comment. More complete information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing open and closed dockets and for submitting comments, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Mail:* You may send written comments to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. If you are commenting on behalf of an association, business, or other entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your name and position title. If you comment via *http://www.regulations.gov* , please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the comment form. If you comment via mail, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure On the Federal e-rulemaking portal, we will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments we receive about this proposal. To view a posted document or comment, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and select “Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau” from the Agency drop-down menu and click “Submit.” In the resulting docket list, click the appropriate docket number, then click the “View” icon for any document or comment posted under that docket number. All submitted and posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. You also may view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps, and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.__ to read as follows: § 9.__ Leona Valley.
(a)*Name* . The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Leona Valley”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Leona Valley” is a term of viticultural significance.
(b)*Approved maps* . The four United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Leona Valley viticultural area are titled:
(1)Ritter Ridge, Calif., 1958; Photorevised 1974;
(2)Sleepy Valley, CA, 1995;
(3)Del Sur, CA, 1995; and
(4)Lake Hughes, CA, 1995.
(c)*Boundary* . The Leona Valley viticultural area is located in Los Angeles County, California. The boundary of the Leona Valley viticultural area is as described below:
(1)From the beginning point on the Ritter Ridge map at the intersection of Elizabeth Lake Pine Canyon Road and the section 23 east boundary line, T6N, R13W, proceed along the section 23 east boundary line approximately 0.1 mile straight south to its intersection with the 3,000-foot elevation line, T6N, R13W; then
(2)Proceed west along the 3,000-foot elevation line to its intersection with the section 23 west boundary line, T6N, R13W; then
(3)Proceed south along the section 23 west boundary line to the southwest corner of section 23 at the 3,616-foot marked elevation point, T6N, R13W; then
(4)Proceed west along the section 22 south boundary line, crossing onto the Sleepy Valley map, and continuing along the section 21 south boundary line, crossing over Pine Creek, to its intersection with the 3,400-foot elevation line, T6N, R13W; then
(5)Proceed west along the 3,400-foot elevation line to its intersection with the section 19 south boundary line and Bouquet Canyon Road, T6N, R13W; then
(6)Proceed straight west along the section 19 south boundary line to its intersection with the 3,560-foot elevation line, an unimproved road, and a power transmission line, north of Lincoln Crest, T6N, R13W; then
(7)Proceed northeast along the 3,560-foot elevation line across section 19 to its east boundary line, T6N, R13W; then
(8)Proceed in a straight line north-northwest approximately 0.25 miles to its intersection with a trail and the 3,800-foot elevation line, T6N, R13W; then
(9)Proceed northwest along the meandering 3,800-foot elevation line through section 19 to its intersection with the section 13 southeast corner, T6N, R14W; then
(10)Proceed straight west, followed by straight north, along the marked Angeles National Forest border to the section 11 southeast corner: then
(11)Proceed straight north along the section 11 east boundary line to its intersection with the 3,400-foot elevation line south of an unimproved road, T6N, R14W; then
(12)Proceed generally northwest along the 3,400-foot elevation line through section 11, crossing onto the Del Sur map, to its intersection with the section 3 southeast corner, T6N, R14W; then
(13)Proceed straight west to the section 4 southeast corner, T6N, R14W; then
(14)Proceed straight north along the section 4 east boundary line approximately 0.05 mile to its intersection with the 3,600-foot elevation line, T6N, R14W; then
(15)Proceed northwest along the 3,600-foot elevation line, through section 4 and crossing onto the Lake Hughes map, to its intersection with the Angeles National Forest border and the section 4 western boundary line, T6N, R14W; then
(16)Proceed straight north along the section 4 western boundary line to its intersection with BM 3402, south of Andrade Corner, T7N, R14W; then
(17)Proceed in a line straight northeast, crossing onto the Del Sur map, to its intersection with the marked 3,552-foot elevation point, section 33, T7N, R14W; then
(18)Proceed in a line straight east-southeast to its intersection with the marked 3,581-foot elevation point, and continue in a straight line east-southeast to its intersection with the marked 3,637-foot elevation point, T6N, R14W; then
(19)Proceed in a line straight northeast to its intersection with the section 2 northwest corner, T6N, R14W; then
(20)Proceed straight east along the section 2 north boundary line 0.35 mile to its intersection with the 3,600-foot elevation line, T6N, R14W; then
(21)Proceed north and then generally southeast along the 3,600-foot elevation line that runs parallel to and south of the Portal Ridge to the elevation line's intersection with the section 7 east boundary line, T6N, R13W; then
(22)Proceed straight south along the section 7 east boundary line, crossing onto the Sleepy Valley map, to its intersection with the 3,400-foot elevation line north of the terminus of 90th Street, T6N, R13W; then
(23)Proceed generally east-southeast along the 3,400-foot elevation line that runs north of the San Andreas Rift Zone to its intersection with the section 16 east boundary line, T6N, R13W; then
(24)Proceed straight south along the section 16 east boundary line to its intersection with the 3,000-foot elevation line, between Goode Hill Road and Elizabeth Lake Pine Canyon Road, T6N, R13W; then
(25)Proceed generally southeast along the 3,000-foot elevation line, crossing onto the Ritter Ridge map, to its intersection with the section 23 east boundary line, north of the intermittent Amargosa Creek and Elizabeth Lake Pine Canyon Road, T6N, R13W; then
(26)Proceed straight south along the section 23 east boundary line to the beginning point. Signed: November 5, 2007. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-22697 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 2702 Freedom of Information Act Procedural Rules AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”) previously published, on October 17, 2007, proposed revisions to its rules implementing the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The period for comments to the proposed rules ended on November 16, 2007. A request was made that the comment period be reopened and the Commission has agreed to do so. DATE: Comments must be submitted on or before November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments and questions may be mailed to Michael A. McCord, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC 20001, or sent via facsimile to 202-434-9944. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. McCord, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC 20001; telephone 202-434-9935; fax 202-434-9944. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 17, 2007, the Commission published revisions to its rules implementing the FOIA. 72 FR 58790. The comment period ended on November 16, 2007. The Commission received a request that the comment period be reopened. Recognizing that the Commission's rules implementing the FOIA impact the public, the Commission has agreed to reopen the comment period in order to extend the opportunity of the interested public to express any comments on the proposed rules. Comments on the proposed rules must be submitted on or before November 30, 2007. Dated: November 16, 2007. Michael F. Duffy, Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. [FR Doc. E7-22792 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704; A-1-FRL-8491-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; Emission Statements Reporting and Definitions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the State of Maine. These revisions update Maine's criteria pollutant emissions reporting program, and list of terms and associated definitions used in Maine's air pollution control regulations. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of these items into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*
(617)918-0047. 4. *Mail:* EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704, Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number 617-918-1046, fax number 617-918-0046, e-mail *mcconnell.robert@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittals as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views them as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: October 25, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E7-22599 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2, 20, 68 [WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 07-192] Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets, Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63
(EMC)ANSI ASC C63 TM AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Consistent with recommendations from Commission staff in a report (Staff Report), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on various possible revisions to its hearing aid compatibility policies and requirements pertaining to wireless services, including several tentative conclusions to modify § 20.19 and other requirements along the framework proposed in a consensus plan (Joint Consensus Plan) recently developed jointly by industry and representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing community. In light of the current marketplace and in anticipation of future developments in wireless offerings, the Commission takes steps to ensure that hearing aid users will continue to benefit from the convenience and features offered by the newest wireless communications systems being provided to American consumers. To the extent people who use hearing aids have difficulty finding a wireless mobile telephone that functions effectively with those devices because of interference or compatibility problems, the Commission states that a continued expansion in the number and availability of hearing aid-compatible wireless telephones is warranted. DATES: Comments due on or before December 21, 2007. Reply comments are due on or before January 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 07-250, 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. • *E-mail:* *ecfs@fcc.gov,* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Mail:* Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. • *Accessible Formats:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) for filing comments either by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Spectrum & Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6603, Washington, DC 20554; or Thomas McCudden, Spectrum & Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6118, Washington, DC 20554. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)* in WT Docket No. 07-250 released November 7, 2007. The complete text of the *NPRM* is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. [The *NPRM* may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* When ordering documents from BCPI please provide the appropriate FCC document number, FCC 07-250. The *NPRM* is also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site through its Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS): *http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/SilverStream/Pages/edocs.html.* *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis:* This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or before January 22, 2008. Comments should address:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198 (see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission notes, however, that § 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, provides that rules governing frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band become effective immediately upon publication in the **Federal Register** without regard to certain sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission is therefore not inviting comment on any information collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band. To view a copy of this information collection request
(ICR)submitted to OMB:
(1)Go to the web page *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,*
(2)look for the section of the web page called “Currently Under Review,”
(3)click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading,
(4)select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box,
(5)click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box,
(6)when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the title of this ICR (or its OMB control number, if there is one) and then click on the ICR Reference Number to view detailed information about this ICR.” For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at
(202)418-2918. Please send your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at *Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov* or via fax at
(202)395-5167 and to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or via Internet at *Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.* The proposed information collection requirements that the Commission seeks public comment on are as follows: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0999. *Title:* Section 20.19, Hearing Aid Compatible Mobile Handsets (Hearing Aid Compatibility Act). *Form Number:* Not applicable. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 925. *Estimated Time per Response:* 3 hours—160 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual reporting requirement; Third party requirement. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 6,975 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* None. *Nature of Response:* Mandatory. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Usage:* On November 7, 2007, the Commission released WT Docket No. 07-250; FCC 07-192. Commission rules require digital wireless phone manufacturers and service providers to make available a certain number of digital wireless phones that meet specific performance levels set forth in an established technical standard. The phones must be made available according to an implementation schedule specified in Commission rules. To monitor the progress of implementation, it is proposed that digital phone manufacturers and service providers submit reports annually from 2008 through 2012. These parties currently submit reports to the Commission; however, the Commission is proposing to revise the reporting criteria for these parties. The Commission proposes to require that manufactures include in their reports to the Commission the following information: digital wireless phones tested; Compliant phone models using the FCC ID number and ratings according to C63.19; status of product labeling; outreach efforts; total numbers of compliant phone models offered as of the time of the report; and information pertaining to product refresh. The Commission is proposing that service providers include in their reports the following information: compliant phone models using the FCC ID number and ratings according to C63.19; status of product labeling; outreach efforts; information related to the retail availability of compliant phones; total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone models offered as of the time of the report; and the “tiers” into which the compliant phones fall. In addition to these criteria, the Commission proposes to require both manufacturers and service providers to provide the model number and FCC ID directly associated with each model that they are reporting as compatible, together with the “M” and “T” rating that each such model has been certified as achieving under the ANSI C63.19 standard. The Commission further proposes to require that these reports include the air interface(s) and frequency band(s) over which each compatible model operates. The Commission is seeking OMB approval for the revised proposed reporting criteria, if adopted by the Commission, the reports will be submitted annually by digital phone manufacturers and services provider through 2012. I. Introduction 1. In this *NPRM,* the Commission takes steps to ensure that hearing aid users will continue to benefit from the convenience and features offered by the newest wireless communications systems being provided to American consumers. The actions proposed by the Commission are designed to take account of an evolving marketplace of new technologies and services. The proposals set forth in this *NPRM* draw upon recommendations proposed in the Staff Report. Several of these proposals, in turn, are based on an interconnected set of rule changes set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan recently developed jointly by industry and representatives for the deaf and hard of hearing community. The specifics of the Joint Consensus Plan, along with a proposed model rule, are contained in the Supplemental Comments of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). ATIS states that its working group developed this comprehensive plan reflecting the joint input of the wireless industry and consumers with hearing loss. In a separate petition, American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)supports the adoption of an updated technical standard as proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, and it states that the new standard includes further improvements that reflect changes in technology, and efficiencies and improvements in testing procedures. II. Discussion 2. In the *NPRM,* the Commission seeks comment on recommendations in the Staff Report and on the various proposals set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan. The Commission makes a number of tentative conclusions based on the broad consensus established by those participating in the development of the Joint Consensus Plan. In the context of several of these tentative conclusions, the Commission requests comment regarding the appropriate deployment regime for Tier II/III carriers and other service providers that are not Tier I carriers, which generally were not included within the Joint Consensus Plan's framework. The Commission requests that manufacturers and service providers be as specific as possible regarding the impact of these proposals on their operations, and that any alternative proposals be supported by evidence as to their feasibility and effectiveness. Affected consumers, including those with hearing difficulties, should support any new proposals with explanations of not only the benefits but also the costs to service providers, manufacturers, or other consumers, and why such costs are outweighed by the benefits. The Joint Consensus Plan contains many interrelated provisions, and the Commission notes the emphasis that its proponents place on adopting the plan as a whole in order to maintain the balance achieved during negotiations by its various member participants. 3. *Requirements and Deadlines for Hearing Aid-Compatible Handset Deployment.* 4. The Commission seeks comment on a set of new requirements for manufacturers and certain carriers as they deploy hearing aid-compatible handsets in the years to come. The first proposal in the Joint Consensus Plan is to modify several deployment deadlines as set forth in § 20.19 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 20.19, including the requirement that manufacturers and wireless service providers ensure that, by February 18, 2008, at least 50 percent of their handset models over each air interface offered meet an M3 or better rating for RF interference reduction, as specified in ANSI Standard C63.19, as well as the requirements for deployment of handsets that meet a T3 rating for inductive coupling capability under the same standard. In this context, the plan also proposes new “product refresh” and “multiple tier” requirements in order to ensure people with hearing loss have access to new, advanced devices. 5. *Deployment Benchmarks and Deadlines.* The Commission seeks comment on tentative conclusions to adopt new hearing aid-compatible handset deployment benchmarks for manufacturers and service providers between 2008 and 2011, consistent with those recommended in the Staff Report and proposed as part of the Joint Consensus Plan. These include proposals
(1)to modify requirements currently in effect for February 18, 2008, and establish future requirements to provide handsets that incorporate reduced RF interference in recognition of technology and market obstacles currently faced by manufacturers and service providers, and
(2)to provide more options to consumers with severe hearing loss by imposing additional requirements on both service providers and manufacturers to make handsets available that are compatible with hearing aids operating in the telecoil mode. In addition to seeking comment on the recommendations and proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission asks commenters to address specifically questions raised in the Staff Report, including those concerning appropriate benchmarks and deadlines to apply to service providers other than Tier I carriers, and those concerning whether staggering of deadlines between manufacturers and service providers is appropriate. 6. *M3- and T3-Rated Benchmarks/Deadlines.* Section 20.19(c) and
(d)of the Commission's rules contains the current deadlines for deployment of public mobile radio service handset models that meet both the M3 (or higher) and T3 (or higher) ratings for compatibility with hearing aids. The Commission seeks comment on modifying these provisions consistent with the proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, both by adopting reduced and alternative benchmarks for deploying handsets compatible with hearing aids operating in acoustic coupling (also known as microphone) mode and by increasing future benchmarks for compatibility with hearing aids operating in inductive coupling (also known as telecoil) mode. 7. With respect to acoustic coupling compatibility, in recognition of marketplace and technical realities, the Commission seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to adopt a lower threshold for equipment manufacturers to deploy M3-rated (or higher) handsets. In place of the current requirement that 50 percent of handset models per air interface meet hearing aid compatibility standards by February 18, 2008, the Commission proposes that manufacturers be obligated, for each air interface for which they offer handsets, to meet the requirement, as proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan, of 33% of manufacturers' non- *de minimis* portfolio models offered to service providers in the United States. Thus, for example, if a manufacturer produces a total of 12 models capable of operating over the GSM air interface (regardless of whether these are single-mode or multi-mode models), at least four of those models would have to meet an M3 or higher rating. Moreover, a multi-mode handset could not be counted as compatible over any air interface unless it is compatible in all air interfaces over which it operates. 8. The Commission notes that technological issues make it difficult to produce a wide variety of Global System for Mobile Communications
(GSM)handsets that both meet the M3 standard for reduced RF interference for acoustic coupling and include certain popular features, and the Commission seeks to promulgate rules that are as technology-impartial as possible. The Commission tentatively concludes that, in context with the other proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, these reduced thresholds strike an appropriate balance between maintaining technological neutrality and ensuring availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to affected consumers. The Commission asks whether differences, in terms of the nature of the signals emitted and burdens of the formulae used to calculate compliance ratings under the ANSI technical standard, support its tentative conclusion and justify this lower benchmark. The Commission asks whether either the GSM or Code Division Multiple Access
(CDMA)air interface have an advantage over the other in terms of rule compliance. The Commission asks whether any impacts to hard of hearing consumers due to the production of fewer numbers of compatible handset models would be offset by the requirement that manufacturers regularly include new compatible models in their product lines. 9. For Tier I (nationwide) carriers, the Commission seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to adopt an alternative schedule to the 50 percent M3-rated (or higher) February 18, 2008 deployment deadline. These carriers would have the choice of complying with either the current rule or a new schedule based on total numbers of compliant handset models. This schedule would create obligations for service providers to provide an increasing number of handset models per air interface over which they offer service by future dates as follows: *February 18, 2008:* eight M3-rated (or higher) handset models; *February 18, 2009:* nine M3-rated (or higher) handset models; *February 18, 2010:* ten M3-rated (or higher) handset models. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion to modify the rule as proposed. 10. Along with these proposals to modify the deployment requirements regarding reduced RF interference for acoustic coupling compatibility, the Commission also seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to increase the benchmarks for manufacturers' and Tier I carriers' deployment of handsets meeting a T3 (or higher) rating for inductive coupling capability. Because customers' options for handsets that enable inductive coupling with telecoils have been more limited than for acoustic coupling compatibility, additional requirements of this nature could benefit some of the most disadvantaged wireless users in the deaf and hard of hearing community, who are more likely to rely on telecoil-equipped hearing aids. Under its proposed rule changes, the Commission would now require manufacturers to meet the greater of two measures for each air interface for which they offer handsets in 2009 through 2011, as follows: a minimum of two T3-rated (or higher) models for each air interface for which the manufacturer offers four or more handset models to service providers; or at least 20%/25%/33% of models that the manufacturer offers over each air interface rated T3 (or higher) by February 18, 2009/2010/2011 respectively. As proposed, these percentage calculations would be rounded down to the nearest whole number in determining the minimum number of handsets to be produced. In addition, the Commission notes that each non- *de minimis* manufacturer would still be required to produce at least two or more T3-rated (or higher) handsets per air interface for which it offers handsets. 11. Service providers are currently not required to deploy additional T3-rated (or higher) handset models once they have met the September 18, 2006 deadline for offering two compliant handset models per air interface. Under its proposed rule changes, the Commission would now require Tier I carriers to meet the lesser of the following requirements for each air interface over which they offer service:
(1)*February 18, 2008:* 33% of digital wireless handset models are T3-rated (or higher); or
(2)a schedule as follows: *February 18, 2008:* three T3-rated (or higher) handsets; *February 18, 2009:* five T3-rated (or higher) handsets; *February 18, 2010:* seven T3-rated (or higher) handsets; and F *ebruary 18, 2011:* Ten T3-rated (or higher) handsets. The Commission tentatively concludes that these increased requirements for deployment of T3-rated (or higher) handsets are necessary and appropriate for both manufacturers and Tier I carriers. The Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion. The Commission also seeks comment on any additional deadlines or deployment milestones that may be appropriate to adopt at this time, such as any future M4 or T4 handset compliance requirements. 12. *Service Providers Other than Tier I Carriers.* As explained in the Staff Report, the Joint Consensus Plan is silent with respect to service providers that are not Tier I carriers. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment generally on the appropriate deployment regime for these wireless service providers. As a general matter, in order to make the benefits of compatible handsets available to all consumers who need them, all service providers should be expected to meet the same benchmarks unless they cannot reasonably do so. At the same time, the Commission notes that in the past numerous Tier II and Tier III carriers have requested, and many have been granted, extension of compatible handset deployment deadlines because they were unable timely to obtain compliant handsets in sufficient quantities from manufacturers. The Commission therefore asks commenters to address whether there is anything inherent in the characteristics of Tier II and Tier III carriers, resellers, and mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), or other categories of smaller service providers, that would prevent them from meeting either the RF interference reduction or inductive coupling-capable handset numbers and percentages set out for Tier I carriers. 13. *Staggered Deadlines for Deployment.* The Commission also specifically seeks comment on whether, with respect to offering compliant handsets, the Commission should require different, staggered deployment deadlines for manufacturers and service providers, such as whether manufacturers should be required to offer compliant handsets at some time prior to all service providers, or to some subset of smaller providers. The Commission notes that many Tier II and Tier III carriers have requested waivers of hearing aid compatibility deadlines, complaining among other things that manufacturers have not made compliant handsets available sufficiently in advance of the deadline so that these service providers could, in turn, make them available to consumers. Instituting a short interval between the manufacturers' and some or all service providers' deadlines might be appropriate to address the circumstances that have engendered these waiver requests. Because of market realities, Tier II and Tier III carriers may have more difficulty than Tier I carriers in obtaining handsets. The Commission notes that the Joint Consensus Plan does not request any staggered deadlines for Tier I carriers. The Commission asks commenters to address specifically whether staggering of deadlines is appropriate in the context of its proposed future hearing aid compatibility requirements, and if so, for how long and for what subset of service providers. 14. *New Requirements for Handset Deployment.* The Commission proposes, in accord with the Staff Report and the Joint Consensus Plan, additional specific measures to ensure that such a range of compatible handset models will be available so that consumers will have access to hearing aid-compatible handsets with the newest features, as well as more economical models. 15. The Commission tentatively concludes that its rules should require equipment manufacturers to meet a “product refresh” requirement, as recommended in the Staff Report and described in the Joint Consensus Plan. This proposal would mandate that manufacturers meet RF interference reduction thresholds for acoustic coupling compatibility in some of their new models each year, enough so that, for manufacturers offering four or more handsets using a given air interface, half of the minimum required number of M3-rated or higher handset models would be new models introduced during the calendar year. To make this calculation, the number of new compliant models to be produced would be 50 percent of the total required number of compliant models, rounded up to the nearest whole number. For manufacturers that produce three total M3-rated models per air interface, at least one new M3-rated (or higher) model shall be introduced every other calendar year. If a manufacturer is not introducing a new model in a calendar year, then under the proposed rule it would not be required to refresh its list of compliant handsets. 16. Notwithstanding its tentative conclusion, the Commission seeks comment on whether this requirement should be modified in any way. For example, it asks whether there are any modifications that would better promote hard of hearing individuals' access to new handset models without causing undue costs to other parties. The Commission also asks whether the proposed “product refresh” requirement would sufficiently ensure that, over time, compatible phones become available across all frequency bands as standards are promulgated and equipment is rolled out. The Commission also solicits comment on whether there are any possible less burdensome or intrusive approaches or incentives that would enable the deaf and hard of hearing community to select fresh models on a regular basis. For any proposal, the Commission asks commenters to address the disadvantages of deviating from the standard proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any implementation issues, such as reporting requirements that may be necessary with regard to these obligations, and any enforcement issues. 17. In addition to a “product refresh” rule for manufacturers, the Commission tentatively concludes that its hearing aid compatibility rules should require Tier I carriers to offer to consumers hearing aid-compatible handsets with different levels of functionality. As described in the Staff Report, a proposed requirement set forth in the Joint Consensus Plan would obligate Tier I carriers to offer handset models from “multiple tiers,” and include a concomitant requirement that these providers’ reports include information on the carriers' implementation of tiering. In the context of the language in the Joint Consensus Plan stating carriers will self-define their tiers, the Commission interprets the term “tiers” to refer to levels of functionality. The Commission further intends functionality to include the extent to which a handset model has the capability to operate over multiple frequency bands for which hearing aid compatibility standards have been established. The Commission seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to require Tier I carriers to provide access to handsets with different levels of functionality. If commenters support this tentative conclusion, the Commission asks them to specifically address how such an obligation might be effectively implemented and enforced in its rules. 18. *2007 ANSI C63.19 Technical Standard.* 19. The Commission seeks comment on changing the current hearing aid compatibility technical standard codified in § 20.19(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 20.19(b). It seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to change the current practice permitting use of multiple versions of ANSI C63.19 and, instead, codify a single 2007 version of the testing standard. ANSI C63.19-2007, an updated version of the technical standard for determining hearing aid compatibility, has been recently approved by the Accredited Standards Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility, C63 TM and adopted by ANSI. Under the Commission's proposal, this new 2007 standard would replace the 2001, 2005 draft, and 2006 versions of the technical standard. The Commission explains that it would retain the current practice of permitting the Chief of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), in coordination with the Chief of Office of Engineering & Technology (OET), on delegated authority, to approve use of future versions of the standard, including multiple alternative versions, to the extent that the changes do not raise major compliance issues. 20. ANSI filed a petition this year requesting that the Commission adopt this 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 technical standard as the permanent standard. ANSI states in its petition that further improvements have been made to the technical standard to reflect changes in technology, and efficiencies and improvements in testing procedures. Because the standard that has been adopted by ANSI is stricter in some respects than prior versions, and is the result of broad participation from diverse groups, the Commission proposes that the standard be codified in its rules in order to better promote the development of hearing aid-compatible handsets that hearing-impaired consumers can readily use. Commenters should address whether they support such a rule change, and if not, identify an acceptable alternative to its tentative conclusion. 21. The Commission also seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to phase in the 2007 standard. Under this proposal, the Commission would permit both the 2006 and 2007 versions of the standard to be used for new RF interference and inductive coupling hearing aid compatibility certifications through 2009. A newly-certified handset would therefore have to meet, at minimum, an M3 or T3 rating as set forth in either the 2006 or 2007 revision of the ANSI C63.19 standard to be considered compatible, while grants of equipment authorization previously issued under other versions of the standard would remain valid for hearing aid compatibility purposes. Then, beginning on January 1, 2010, the Commission would only permit use of the 2007 version of the standard for obtaining new grants of equipment authorization, while continuing to recognize the validity of existing grants under previous versions of the standard. The Commission seeks comment on whether this two step phase-in period appropriately balances the interests in bringing state-of-the-art compatible handsets to hard of hearing consumers and in avoiding unreasonable burdens on manufacturers and service providers. It also asks commenters to consider whether there are alternative implementations of the 2007 standard that would better serve these goals. 22. *Reporting Obligations, Public Information, and Outreach.* 23. The Commission seeks comment on proposed requirements relating to manufacturers' and service providers' filing of hearing aid compatibility reports with the Commission, as well as other public information and outreach measures. 24. *Reporting.* The Commission tentatively concludes not only to continue requiring service providers and manufacturers to report regularly on the availability of hearing aid-compatible products, but to enhance and improve the content of the reports that are filed. As reported in the Staff Report, there is evidence in the record that some of the information in the existing compliance reports may not be as complete or as helpful as possible for consumers, wireless service providers, or the Commission. Furthermore, staff encountered difficulties when verifying the ratings for certain handset models identified in compliance reports, because many of the compliance reports referenced the handset manufacturer and model number but did not include the associated FCC ID. In order to address these shortcomings, the Joint Consensus Plan includes proposed requirements that will render the reports more helpful to consumers and others by providing them with better information concerning the commercial availability of compliant handsets. Specifically, the Joint Consensus Plan recommends that reports include: 25. Manufacturers: digital wireless phones tested; compliant phone models using the FCC ID number and ratings according to C63.19; status of product labeling; outreach efforts; total numbers of compliant phone models offered as of the time of the report; and information pertaining to product refresh. 26. Service providers: compliant phone models using the FCC ID number and ratings according to C63.19; status of product labeling; outreach efforts; information related to the retail availability of compliant phones; total numbers of compliant and non-compliant phone models offered as of the time of the report; and the “tiers” into which the compliant phones fall. 27. The Commission proposes to adopt these reporting criteria and asks commenters to address whether they capture the appropriate information and level of detail. In particular, to clarify the information collection recommended in the Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission proposes to require both manufacturers and service providers to provide the model number and FCC ID directly associated with each model that they are reporting as compatible, together with the “M” and “T” rating that each such model has been certified as achieving under the ANSI C63.19 standard. The Commission would accept the manufacturer's determination of whether a device is a distinct model consistent with the manufacturer's marketing practices, so long as models that have no distinguishing variations of form, features, or user capabilities, or that only differentiate units sold to a particular carrier, are not separately counted as distinct models to customers. The Commission further proposes to require that reports include the air interface(s) and frequency band(s) over which each compatible model operates. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed additional requirements. In addition, the Commission asks whether it should vary the information sought depending on the type of service provider (e.g., Tier I carrier vs. other service provider). 28. The Commission also seeks comment on additional ways to improve the quality and usefulness of the reports, including whether the Commission should require additional information beyond that proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan. Unless commenters support another process, the Commission proposes to authorize Commission staff to develop a standardized reporting format for collecting information. 29. In addition, the Commission seeks comment regarding the schedule under which the Commission should require future reports. Under the proposal contained in the Joint Consensus Plan, the Commission would adopt a staggered schedule whereby manufacturers would be required to provide an annual status report to the Commission beginning November 30, 2007, Tier I carriers would be required to provide an annual status report to the Commission six months later beginning May 30, 2008, and Tier II and III carriers would be required to provide an annual status report beginning May 30, 2009. These reporting requirements would continue annually thereafter through the November report in 2012. The Commission seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to adopt substantially this schedule, but with certain refinements. First, given the timing of this proceeding, the Commission expects that manufacturers and service providers will be required to comply with current rules for November 2007 reporting. To the extent the Commission maintains the current November 17, 2007 reporting deadline during the rulemaking, commenters should consider how the remaining schedule may need to be modified. 30. In addition, the Commission questions the Joint Consensus Plan proposal to adopt a delayed reporting requirement for Tier II and III carriers whereby their next reports would not be required until a year after the Tier I carriers' reports. In light of the recommendations in the Staff Report and its objectives, especially for consumers who receive service from such providers, the Commission seeks comment on whether it serves the public interest to delay their next reports for a period of 18 months to two years from their reports that will be submitted in November 2007, or whether they should instead be held to the same schedule as Tier I carriers in order to provide a steady source of information to consumers and to the Commission. Moreover, given that Tier II and III carriers have already been filing reports regularly, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of the burdens that would be avoided by postponing their first reports as proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan, balanced against the extent of information that would be lost by introducing a gap of 18 months or more in their reporting. Commenters should also address whether the reporting deadlines for Tier II and III carriers should depend on its adoption of staggered deployment deadlines. Finally, if the Commission adopts different reporting deadlines for Tier I versus Tier II and III carriers, the Commission seeks comment on the rules that should apply to resellers and to MVNOs. 31. *Public Information and Outreach.* In addition to the content and frequency of manufacturer and service provider reports, the Commission seeks comment on other ways to increase the availability of hearing aid compatibility information to consumers, service providers, and other interested parties. As explained in the Staff Report, the Commission's existing databases and websites are of limited value for these purposes. For example, although OET's equipment authorization database has information about hearing aid compatibility ratings associated with manufacturers' equipment, the database maintains such information based on FCC IDs, not handset model numbers, and it does not maintain a single clear, current record associated with each ID. Thus, it is difficult—particularly for an inexperienced user—to search for hearing aid-compatible models based either on the manufacturer's name or on the model's FCC ID. Similarly, the Disability Rights Office
(DRO)of the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau maintains a website that explains the disability access rules and provides contact information for manufacturers and service providers, but this website does not include information regarding the compatibility of particular handset models. As noted in the Staff Report, although a consumer wishing to file a complaint under § 255 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 255, can locate the designated agent's name and contact information from the Commission's website, no similar information is available under the process governing complaints for violations of hearing aid compatibility requirements. Under the hearing aid compatibility complaint process, consumers are responsible for identifying the agent designated by manufacturers or service providers for service of complaints under 47 CFR 68.418(b). The Commission notes that it extended its part 68, subpart E rules to allow consumers to file informal complaints under those rules if they find that wireless service providers or manufacturers of wireless equipment are not complying with its hearing aid compatibility rules. 32. In recognition of these shortcomings, the Commission seeks comment on potential measures to improve the value of these databases and websites for parties seeking hearing aid compatibility information, including, for example, adding a relevant search function to the equipment authorization database or adding links to manufacturers' and service providers' websites from the DRO's web page. In addition to the ongoing efforts of Commission staff to continue to improve information available to consumers, service providers, and other interested parties, the Commission seeks comment as to any specific measures the Commission should require or take, such as requiring manufacturers to include in their equipment authorization filings the handset models associated with each FCC ID number, and to update this information when they introduce new models. Also, the Commission asks whether it should adopt new part 2 rules to require a filing for permissive changes that includes trade names and model numbers. The Commission also requests comment on whether to require manufacturers and service providers subject to the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules to follow the same procedures as those applicable to § 255 complaints, and to have the Commission publish hearing aid compatibility designated agents' contact information on the DRO website. 33. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can encourage digital wireless handset manufacturers and service providers to engage in additional outreach efforts to assist consumers with hearing disabilities as they shop for wireless phones. As recommended in the Staff Report, the Commission seeks comment on how best to promote the availability of useful hearing aid compatibility information on manufacturers' and service providers' websites, including whether the Commission should not only encourage but require the posting of such information. The Commission further seeks comment as to what requirements or guidelines, if any, it should provide regarding the content of such postings. 34. Consistent with the recommendations in the Staff Report, the Commission also seeks comment generally on any other ways that wireless manufacturers, service providers, and independent retailers can improve the effectiveness of their in-store testing, consumer education, and other consumer outreach efforts. These efforts would, ideally, include new ways of publicly identifying compliant phones for consumers and audiologists, as well as efforts that independent retailers could take to facilitate such identification. In addition, in order to assist consumers as they shop for wireless phones, the Commission also asks whether there are additional steps it can take to facilitate the flow of information between consumers, manufacturers, and service providers to meet its hearing aid compatibility outreach objectives. 35. *Other Components of Joint Consensus Plan, and Related Proposals.* 36. As recommended in the Staff Report, the Commission seeks comment on several additional proposals in the Joint Consensus Plan, as well as on matters related to those proposals. 37. Other Spectrum Bands. The Joint Consensus Plan contains a request that the Commission apply the Commission's hearing aid compatibility rules to all spectrum bands that are used for the provision of Commercial Mobile Radio Services
(CMRS)in the United States, subject to standards development. The Commission determined earlier this year that all digital CMRS providers, regardless of the particular band in which they were operating, as well as manufacturers of handsets capable of providing such services, should be subject to the hearing aid compatibility requirements set forth in § 20.19 to the extent that a service satisfies the scope provision for hearing aid compatibility set forth in its part 20 rules. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether any further action is necessary or appropriate in this regard, and in particular on several specific questions that relate to the extension of hearing aid compatibility requirements to new frequency bands. First, the Commission seeks comment on how its current hearing aid compatibility requirements apply to mobile satellite service
(MSS)providers that offer CMRS and whether any revisions to the hearing aid compatibility rules are appropriate respecting such providers, in order to promote consistent treatment for all CMRS providers that offer functionally equivalent services. In this regard, the Commission asks commenters to address whether it should make a difference if an MSS provider offers service purely through a satellite-based network or through a combined network that relies on both satellite and ancillary terrestrial component
(ATC)facilities. 38. Second, the Commission agrees with the recommendation in the Staff Report that standard-setting bodies should strive to develop hearing aid compatibility standards together with technical operating specifications for new frequency bands. The Commission seeks comment on any measures that the Commission should take to promote this practice. 39. Third, the Commission has held that if a handset manufacturer or service provider offers a multi-band handset in order to comply with the hearing aid compatibility requirements, the handset must be hearing aid-compatible in each frequency band over which it operates. The Commission tentatively concludes to codify this requirement in § 20.19 of the rules. The Commission further tentatively concludes, consistent with this principle, that multi-band phones should not be counted as compatible in any band if they operate over frequency bands for which technical standards have not been established. The Commission believes this limitation would conform with consumers' expectation that a phone labeled “hearing aid compatible” is compatible in all its operations. Treating such handsets as not compatible would also create incentives for industry bodies to develop compatibility standards for new frequency bands more quickly. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion. 40. Fourth, the Commission notes that the ANSI C63.19 standard includes target values for hearing aid compatibility validation procedures for operation over specific air interfaces at frequencies in the ranges of 800-950 MHz and 1.6-2.5 GHz. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes to revise § 20.19(b), 47 CFR 20.19(b), to include services operating over any frequencies within these two bands, to the extent they employ air interfaces for which hearing aid compatibility technical standards have been established and approved by the Commission. 41. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether it can, and should, establish a mechanism under which hearing aid compatibility regulations would become applicable to future frequency bands as soon as, or within a defined period after, technical standards are established for relevant air interfaces. Under its current rules, the Commission must modify § 20.19 pursuant to rulemaking to add new services or new frequency bands. Amending § 20.19 so that a rule change is not necessary every time technical standards are established for new services, new air interfaces, or new frequency bands potentially would bring the benefits of compatible handsets more quickly to consumers and would provide greater certainty to all affected parties. In addition, to the extent that manufacturers and service providers are already meeting their obligations to offer defined numbers or percentages of hearing aid-compatible handsets over previously covered services, the automatic extension of its rules to additional frequency bands may not impose significant additional burdens, and may even assist manufacturers and service providers in achieving compliance by permitting them to count multi-band models as compliant. The Commission asks commenters to address both the benefits and the drawbacks of an automatic effectiveness regime, as well as what the specific rules should entail. Under existing rules, the Commission generally must approve revised versions of ANSI C63.19 for such revised standards to take effect for purposes of its hearing aid compatibility requirements. The Commission asks whether a standard should be considered “established” for a new frequency band upon its promulgation by C63, or whether there should be a process for the Commission or its staff to review or approve the standard, and if so what should that process be. 42. Multi-Mode Handsets. The Commission tentatively concludes to adopt the proposal in the Joint Consensus Plan stating that multi-mode handsets do not satisfy § 20.19 for any air interface unless they are compatible in all air interfaces over which they operate. The Commission further tentatively concludes, consistent with its tentative conclusion regarding multi-band handsets, that multi-mode phones should not be counted as compatible in any mode if they operate over air interfaces for which technical standards have not been established. The Commission believes this rule would conform to consumers' expectations and would help promote the rapid development of compatibility standards for new air interfaces. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions and on any other potential measures to promote the development of compatibility standards for new air interfaces together with technical operating specifications. 43. *De Minimis* Exception. The Commission adopted a *de minimis* exception, which relieves wireless service providers and handset manufacturers that offer two or fewer digital wireless handset models in the United States from the hearing aid compatibility compliance obligations. The Joint Consensus Plan proposes that the Commission retain the *de minimis* exception and clarify that it applies on a per-air interface basis. The Commission notes that it has already clarified that the *de minimis* exception applies on a per-air interface basis, rather than across a manufacturer's or carrier's entire product line. The Commission tentatively concludes that this clarification should be codified in its rules. The Commission also invite further comment on the question of whether to narrow the *de minimis* exception. 44. 2010 Further Review. The Joint Consensus Plan proposes that the Commission establish a further review of the hearing aid compatibility rules in 2010. The Commission tentatively concludes to adopt this proposal, and the Commission seeks comment. In particular, given the timing of the obligations the Commission proposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether such a review would be more appropriate at a later date, such as in 2012. The Commission states that once the proposed deployment deadlines have passed and the Commission can assess the effectiveness of any action it takes arising out of its proposals, it may decide to add new or additional obligations, or on the other hand, reduce its oversight role if the state of competition or technology supports such action. 45. Volume Controls. Consistent with the Joint Consensus Plan's recommendation, the Commission urges all interested parties to specifically look into adding volume controls to wireless handsets. The Commission seeks comment on whether any volume control requirements should be incorporated into its rules, and if so what they should be. The Commission also invites comment on interference from handset screen displays, including whether any measures are appropriate to promote the deployment of phones that enable users to turn off their screens. 46. *Emerging Technologies.* 47. The Commission seeks comment on whether its hearing aid compatibility rules should be modified to address new technologies being used and offered by manufacturers and providers in their wireless handsets and networks. Under current Commission rules, manufacturers and service providers are required to meet the Commission's hearing aid compatibility standards only to the extent that handsets are associated with digital CMRS networks that “offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.” 47 CFR 20.19(a). The Commission seeks comment on whether it should extend some or a portion of the hearing aid compatibility requirements under § 20.19 to wireless handsets that may fall outside the definition of CMRS and the criteria in § 20.19(a), such as handsets that operate on unlicensed Wireless Fidelity
(WiFi)networks that do not employ an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs. The Staff Report provides several examples of service providers offering access to Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP)applications over WiFi and other wireless technologies. The Commission agrees with the recommendation in the Staff Report that the Commission should consider whether to change its rules to address these developments. 48. First, the Commission seeks comment generally on the application of its hearing aid compatibility rules to VoIP applications provided over wireless technologies such as WiFi and other emerging technologies. The Commission asks commenters to address how current and anticipated future use of VoIP applications over wireless networks, both interconnected and non-interconnected, would be treated under the interaction of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act and its rules. 47 U.S.C. 610(b)(2). The Commission asks several questions about the scope and applicability of § 20.19(a) in these situations. Commenters suggesting changes are asked to address not only the policy reasons for their proposed revisions, but also the Commission's legal authority to adopt them. 49. In addition, the Commission solicits comment as to whether any new hearing aid compatibility rules are appropriate to address handsets that combine covered mobile voice operation with data services provided over WiFi networks or other emerging technologies. The Commission notes that such service combinations may be particularly attractive to deaf and hard of hearing consumers, but that its current rules do not necessarily require that any such handsets be hearing aid-compatible if the manufacturer and service provider satisfy their hearing aid compatibility benchmarks using other models. Elsewhere in the *NPRM* , the Commission tentatively concludes to adopt “product refresh” and “tiering” rules that are intended to ensure consumers who use hearing aids will have access to mobile handsets with a range of functionalities. The Commission seeks comment as to whether these proposed rules appropriately promote the availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets that include data services provided over WiFi networks or other emerging technologies, or whether additional measures are needed. In this regard, the Commission notes that the requirements of § 20.19 apply to handsets used with either voice or data services that fall within its terms. The Commission seeks comment as to the implications of imposing hearing aid compatibility requirements based on the provision of wireless data services, and whether this provision should be changed. 50. Finally, the Commission invites broad comment on what additional regulatory obligations may be appropriate to address the issues raised by emerging wireless technologies, taking into account the statutory goal to promote equal access to communications equipment and services for consumers with hearing loss as well as economic, technological, and legal constraints. Regulation may be appropriate when new technology causes people with hearing disabilities to lose access, but the Commission is unsure what the extent of any access problem may be and what measures may best address any such problem, and the Commission therefore invites commenters to address this question. As emerging technologies progress, the deaf and hard of hearing community should be able to benefit to a similar degree as the mainstream population, as has been its goal under § 20.19. 51. *Networks Using Open Platforms for Devices and Applications.* 52. The Commission required that licensees of the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block of spectrum provide “open platforms” for devices and applications to allow customers, device manufacturers, third-party application developers, and others to use the devices and applications of their choosing in C Block networks, subject to certain reasonable network management conditions that allow the licensee to protect the network from harm. An open platform network mandate, such as that for the Upper 700 MHz Band C Block of spectrum, may fundamentally alter the paradigm within which the hearing aid compatibility rules apply. As currently constituted, § 20.19 of the Commission's rules imposes hearing aid compatibility obligations only on manufacturers and providers of services within its scope, including resellers and MVNOs. With the growth of open platform networks, however, entities other than the traditional equipment manufacturers and service providers may become increasingly significant. While the existing requirements on manufacturers, together with the open platform requirements themselves, may be adequate to ensure sufficient hearing aid-compatible handset choice for consumers, the Commission seeks comment on whether any additional hearing aid compatibility requirements should be imposed in the context of open platform networks. 53. The Commission seeks comment both on whether to impose additional hearing aid compatibility requirements on manufacturers in the context of open platform networks, and on whether to extend any requirements to entities that are not currently covered. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how to extend its hearing aid compatibility requirements to the responsible manufacturing party in joint venture situations. 54. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how to extend its hearing aid compatibility rules, including handset deployment, information, and outreach requirements, from service providers to other entities offering handsets to consumers within an open platform environment. Considering the development of open platform networks, there may be a greater need for in-store testing by independent retailers or other third parties. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether to extend in-store testing rules to independent retailers or other third parties in the context of open platform networks. The Commission seeks comment on the regulatory status under its current hearing aid compatibility rules of application developers and other potential new participants using open platform networks, and on whether any new hearing aid compatibility requirements should appropriately be imposed on such entities. III. Procedural Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 55. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this *NPRM* . The IRFA is set forth in an Appendix to the *NPRM* . Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to the *NPRM* , and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 56. This *NPRM* contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this *NPRM* , as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or before January 22, 2008. Comments should address:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198 (see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission notes, however, that § 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 provides that rules governing frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band become effective immediately upon publication in the **Federal Register** without regard to certain sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B); see 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B). The Commission is therefore not inviting comment on any information collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band. C. Other Procedural Matters 1. Ex Parte Presentations 57. The rulemaking this *NPRM* initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte* rules. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 2. Comment Filing Procedures 58. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before December 21, 2007 and reply comments on or before January 7, 2008. All filings related to this *NPRM* should refer to WT Docket No. 07-250. Comments may be filed using:
(1)The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. 59. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for WT Docket No. 07-250. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and WT Docket No. 07-250. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. 60. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 3. Accessible Formats 61. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *FCC504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY). IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 62. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules considered in this *NPRM* . Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *NPRM* . The Commission will send a copy of this *NPRM* , including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, this *NPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . 63. Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000 provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band. In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, § 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and §§ 3507 and 3512 of Title 44, United States Code. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B); see 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47 U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A) through (B). The Commission nevertheless believes that it would serve the public interest to analyze the possible significant economic impact of the proposed policy and rule changes in this band on small entities. Accordingly, this IRFA contains an analysis of this impact in connection with all spectrum that falls within the scope of this *NPRM* , including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band. A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 64. In the *NPRM* , the Commission reexamines existing hearing aid compatibility requirements to ensure that they will continue to be effective in an evolving marketplace of new technologies and services. Although the *NPRM* tentatively concludes substantially to adopt new M3- and T3-rated handset deployment benchmarks through 2011, and a related requirement to offer handsets with different levels of functionality, for Tier I carriers only, it also seeks comment on the appropriate regime for smaller service providers. In addition, the *NPRM* tentatively concludes to adopt new deployment benchmarks for all manufacturers, subject to a *de minimis* exception for certain manufacturers with small product lines. Moreover, the Commission also tentatively concludes that the following steps that might affect small businesses are needed to meet its objectives:
(1)Implement a “product refresh” rule for manufacturers;
(2)adopt, after a suitable phase-in period, the use of a single version of the ANSI C63.19 standard, ANSI C63.19-2007; and
(3)adopt new content and timelines for hearing aid compatibility reporting requirements. In the context of several of these tentative conclusions, the Commission requests comment on possible compliance requirements not included within the Joint Consensus Plan's framework. For example, the Commission seeks comment on the possibility of staggered handset deployment deadlines for different classes of service providers and manufacturers, additional reporting/outreach obligations, and other measures that may impact small entities. In addition, following upon the recommendations in the Staff Report, the *NPRM* invites comments on new hearing aid compatibility issues implicated by recent developments relating to provision of Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP)over wireless platforms, as well as “open platform” networks. The Commission is open to comment on what, if any, requirements it should, or should not, impose for small entities if it adopts new rules based on the proposals in the *NPRM* . 65. To promote compatibility between digital wireless telephones and hearing aids, this *NPRM* could result in rule changes that, if adopted, would create new opportunities and obligations for several categories of wireless service providers, as well as manufacturers of wireless handsets. The rule changes in the *NPRM* may affect service providers and equipment manufacturers in services for which technical standards both have and have not been established. In addition, the *NPRM* requests comment on potential rule changes that may affect providers of VoIP applications over wireless technologies, as well as independent retailers and other third parties in the context of “open platform” networks. 66. The Commission states that ensuring the availability of hearing aid-compatible handsets to hard of hearing consumers, as well as information about such handsets, remains a high priority. To the extent people who use hearing aids have difficulty finding a wireless mobile telephone that functions effectively with those devices because of interference or compatibility problems, the Commission states that a continued expansion in the number and availability of hearing aid-compatible wireless telephones is warranted. It explains that its objective is to take account of changing market and technological conditions with appropriate new steps to ensure that hearing aid users will continue to benefit from the convenience and features offered by the newest wireless communications systems being provided to American consumers. B. Legal Basis 67. The potential actions about which comment is sought in this *NPRM* would be authorized pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 610. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 68. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). To assist the Commission in analyzing the total number of potentially affected small entities, the Commission requests commenters to estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by any rule changes that might result from this *NPRM* . 69. *Wireless Communications Services* . This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services
(WCS)auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that qualified as a small business entity. 70. *700 MHz Guard Bands Licenses* . The Commission adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area
(MEA)licenses for each of two spectrum blocks commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of remaining 700 MHz Guard Bands licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses. Subsequently, the Commission reorganized the licenses pursuant to an agreement among most of the licensees, resulting in a spectral relocation of the first set of paired spectrum block licenses, and an elimination of the second set of paired spectrum block licenses (many of which were already vacant, reclaimed by the Commission from Nextel). A single licensee that did not participate in the agreement was grandfathered in the initial spectral location for its two licenses in the second set of paired spectrum blocks. Accordingly, at this time there are 54 licenses in the 700 MHz Guard Bands. 71. *700 MHz Band Commercial Licenses* . There is 80 megahertz of non-Guard Band spectrum in the 700 MHz Band that is designated for commercial use: 698-757, 758-763, 776-787, and 788-793 MHz Bands. With one exception, the Commission adopted criteria for defining two groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for bidding credits at auction. These two categories are:
(1)“Small business,” which is defined as an entity that has attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million during the preceding three years; and
(2)“very small business,” which is defined as an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years. In Block C of the Lower 700 MHz Band (710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz), which was licensed on the basis of 734 Cellular Market Areas, the Commission adopted a third criterion for determining eligibility for bidding credits: An “entrepreneur,” which is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small size standards. 72. An auction of 740 licenses for Blocks C (710-716 MHz and 740-746 MHz) and D (716-722 MHz) of the Lower 700 MHz Band commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: five EAG licenses and 251 CMA licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. 73. The remaining 62 megahertz of commercial spectrum is currently scheduled for auction on January 24, 2008. Bidding credits for all of these licenses will be available to “small businesses” and “very small businesses.” 74. *Government Transfer Bands.* The Commission adopted small business size standards for the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands. Specifically, with respect to these bands, the Commission defined an entity with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 million as a “small business,” and an entity with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $15 million as a “very small business.” SBA has approved these small business size standards for the aforementioned bands. Correspondingly, the Commission adopted a bidding credit of 15 percent for “small businesses” and a bidding credit of 25 percent for “very small businesses.” This bidding credit structure was found to have been consistent with the Commission's schedule of bidding credits, which may be found at § 1.2110(f)(2) of the Commission's rules. The Commission found that these two definitions will provide a variety of businesses seeking to provide a variety of services with opportunities to participate in the auction of licenses for this spectrum and will afford such licensees, who may have varying capital costs, substantial flexibility for the provision of services. The Commission noted that it had long recognized that bidding preferences for qualifying bidders provide such bidders with an opportunity to compete successfully against large, well-financed entities. The Commission also noted that it had found that the use of tiered or graduated small business definitions is useful in furthering its mandate under § 309(j) to promote opportunities for and disseminate licenses to a wide variety of applicants. An auction for one license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April 30, 2003 and closed the same day. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was not a small entity. 75. *Advanced Wireless Services.* The Commission adopted rules that affect applicants who wish to provide service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands. The Commission did not know precisely the type of service that a licensee in these bands might seek to provide. Nonetheless, the Commission anticipated that the services that will be deployed in these bands may have capital requirements comparable to those in the broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), and that the licensees in these bands will be presented with issues and costs similar to those presented to broadband PCS licensees. Further, at the time the broadband PCS service was established, it was similarly anticipated that it would facilitate the introduction of a new generation of service. Therefore, the Commission adopts the same small business size definition that it adopted for the broadband PCS service and that the SBA approved. In particular, it defines a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. It also provides small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent. 76. *Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.* Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”), formerly known as Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”), and Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”), formerly known as Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”), use frequencies at 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz to transmit video programming and provide broadband services to residential subscribers. These services, collectively referred to as “wireless cable,” were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over the past several years licensees have focused their operations instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. The Commission estimates that the number of wireless cable subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. The SBA small business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS and ITFS. Other standards also apply, as described. 77. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually. Therefore, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 78. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). The Commission estimates that there are currently 2,032 EBS licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, it estimates that at least 1,932 EBS licensees are small entities. 79. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for small businesses in the category “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).” Under that SBA category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 80. *Broadband Personal Communications Service.* The broadband Personal Communications Service
(PCS)spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 “small” and “very small” business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F PCS licenses in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as “small” or “very small” businesses. Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. 81. *Specialized Mobile Radio.* The Commission awards “small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio
(SMR)geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The Commission awards “very small entity” bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses. 82. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed “small business” status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business. 83. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million, or have no more than 1,500 employees. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is established by the SBA. 84. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 85. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite), *i.e.* , an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 86. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several ultra high frequency
(UHF)TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission uses the SBA definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. 87. *Mobile Satellite Service Carriers.* Neither the Commission nor the U.S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business size standard specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they have $13.5 million or less in annual revenues. Currently, the Commission's records show that there are 31 entities authorized to provide voice and data MSS in the United States. The Commission does not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of these parties are small entities. The Commission notes that small businesses are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS system operators because of high implementation costs, including construction of satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated with satellite systems and services. Still, the Commission requests comment on the number and identity of small entities that would be significantly impacted by the proposed rule changes. 88. *Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers.* The SBA has established a small business size standard for wireless communications equipment manufacturers. Under the standard, firms are considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 1997 indicates that, for that year, there were a total of 1,215 establishments in this category. Of those, there were 1,150 that had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had employment of 500 to 999. The Commission estimates that the majority of wireless communications equipment manufacturers are small businesses. 89. *Radio, Television, and Other Electronics Stores* . This U.S. industry comprises:
(1)establishments known as consumer electronics stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of new consumer-type electronic products;
(2)establishments specializing in retailing a single line of consumer-type electronic products (except computers); or
(3)establishments primarily engaged in retailing these new electronic products in combination with repair services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category of retail store; that size standard is $7.5 million or less in annual revenues. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 8,328 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 8,088 firms had annual sales of under $5 million, and an additional 132 had annual sales of $5 million to $9,999,999. Therefore, the majority of these businesses may be considered to be small. 90. *Internet Service Providers* . In the *NPRM* , the Commission seeks comment on whether to extend hearing aid compatibility requirements to entities offering access to VoIP applications over WiFi and other wireless technologies that may fall outside the definition of CMRS and/or the criteria in § 20.19(a), such as those operating on networks that do not employ “an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs.” Such applications may be provided, for example, by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs are Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals that provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity. To gauge small business prevalence for these Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals, the Commission must, however, use current census data that are based on the previous category of Internet Service Providers and its associated size standard. That standard was: all such firms having $23.5 million or less in annual receipts. Accordingly, to use data available to it under the old standard and Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 2,437 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 47 firms had receipts of between $10 million and $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by this action. 91. *All Other Information Services* . This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing other information services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives). VoIP services over wireless technologies could be provided by entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is $6.5 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 195 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of these, 172 had annual receipts of under $5 million, and an additional nine firms had receipts of between $5 million and $9,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by this action. 92. *Part 15 Device Manufacturers* . Manufacturers of unlicensed wireless devices may also become subject to requirements in this proceeding for their devices used to provide VoIP applications. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to unlicensed communications devices manufacturers. Therefore, the Commission will utilize the SBA definition applicable to Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. 1 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 1 *Id.* An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or more. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 93. The Commission tentatively concludes that it will adopt several reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements which could affect small entities. For example, manufacturers and service providers have filed regular reports with the Commission since 2003 detailing their hearing aid compatibility efforts. In order to address shortcomings that have been observed in the existing reports and to render future reports as transparent and useful as possible for consumers, industry, and Commission staff responsible for helping to ensure that the Commission's hearing aid compatibility requirements are fully implemented, the Commission tentatively concludes to adopt new content requirements, as recommended in the Staff Report and proposed in the Joint Consensus Plan. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 94. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):
(1)The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and
(4)and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 95. The Commission seeks comment generally on the effect the rule changes considered in this *NPRM* would have on small entities, on whether alternative rules should be adopted for small entities in particular, and on what effect such alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission invites comment on ways in which it can achieve its goals while minimizing the burden on small wireless service providers, equipment manufacturers, and other entities. 96. For example, the Commission specifically considers handset deployment benchmark alternatives for small businesses. In this regard, the Commission requests comment regarding the appropriate benchmarks and deadlines for Tier II and Tier III carriers, resellers, mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), and other categories of smaller service providers. The Commission notes that in the past numerous Tier II and Tier III carriers have requested, and many have been granted, extension of compatible handset deployment deadlines because they were unable timely to obtain compliant handsets in sufficient quantities from manufacturers. The Commission states that Tier II and Tier III carriers may have more difficulty than Tier I carriers in obtaining handsets due to market realities. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the alternative of whether the handset deployment benchmarks proposed for Tier I carriers are appropriate for smaller carriers, and on whether the deadlines for those entities in particular should be later than those applicable to manufacturers. To consider the economic impact on small entities, the Commission asks commenters to address whether there is anything inherent in the characteristics of smaller service providers that would prevent them from meeting either the RF interference or inductive coupling-capable handset numbers and percentages set out for Tier I carriers. The Commission asks commenters to discuss with specificity any alternative requirements or schedules that they propose for these types of service providers, and the reasons for those alternatives. 97. The *NPRM* also considers the alternative of delayed reporting obligations for non-Tier I carriers, which includes small entities. The *NPRM* seeks comment on the appropriate reporting timelines for Tier II and III carriers, including the alternative of delaying their next reports for a period of 18 months to two years from their reports that will be submitted in November 2007, versus the alternative of whether they should instead be held to the same schedule as Tier I carriers in order to provide a steady source of information to consumers and to the Commission. In this context, the Commission considers the extent of the burdens to Tier II and III carriers that would be avoided by postponing their first reports as proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan. For example, given that Tier II and III carriers have already been filing reports regularly, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of any inconvenience or costs that would be avoided by postponing their first reports as proposed under the Joint Consensus Plan, balanced against the extent of information that would be lost by introducing a gap of 18 months or more in their reporting. Finally, the *NPRM* asks commenters to address whether the delayed reporting deadline alternative for Tier II and III carriers should depend on what deployment deadlines are adopted. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 98. None. V. Ordering Clauses 99. *It is ordered* that, pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 610, this *NPRM is hereby adopted* . 100. *It is further ordered* that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the *NPRM* on or before December 21, 2007 and reply comments on or before January 7, 2008. 101. *It is further ordered* that the petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63
(EMC)ANSI ASC C63 TM *is granted* to the extent set forth herein. 102. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, *shall send* a copy of the *NPRM* , including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Ruth A. Dancey, Associate Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22657 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0014] RIN 2127-AK09 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seating Systems, Occupant Crash Protection, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: NHTSA issued a report in 2002 on the results of a comprehensive school bus research program examining ways of further improving school bus safety. Based on that research, we are now proposing several upgrades to the school bus passenger crash protection requirements. For new school buses of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), we propose to require lap/shoulder belts in lieu of the lap belts that are currently specified. For school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings
(GVWR)greater than 4,536 kilograms
(kg)(10,000 pounds), this NPRM provides guidance to State and local jurisdictions on the subject of installing seat belts. Each State or local jurisdiction would continue to decide whether to install belts on these large school buses. Where State or local decisions are made to install lap or lap/shoulder belts on large school buses, this NPRM proposes performance requirements for those voluntarily-installed seat belts on large school buses manufactured after the proposed effective date. Other changes to school bus safety requirements are also proposed, including raising the height of seat backs from 20 inches to 24 inches on all new school buses. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at 202-366-9324. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Privacy Act:* Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone: 202-366-0247) (fax: 202-366-4921). Mr. Hott's mailing address is National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NVS-113, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. For legal issues, Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-2992) (fax: 202-366-3820). Ms. Nakama's mailing address is National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NCC-112, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background III. The Issue of Seat Belts on Large School Buses IV. Studies V. Federal Guidance on Belts on Large Buses a. NHTSA School Bus Research Results b. Agency Recommended Best Practices c. Guidance on Lap Belts on Large School Buses VI. Proposed Upgrades to Occupant Crash Protection a. Improving the Compartmentalized School Bus Interior of Both Small and Large School Buses b. Additional Occupant Protection Requirements for Small School Buses (School Buses With a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or Less) c. Additional Occupant Protection Requirements for Large School Buses With Voluntarily-Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belts d. Additional Requirements for Large School Buses with Voluntarily-Installed Lap Belts VII. Quasi-Static Test for Lap/Shoulder Belts on Small and Large School Buses a. Stage 1: Torso Belt Anchorage Displacement b. Stage 2: Energy Absorption Capability of the Seat Back c. Request for Comments VIII. Lead Time IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices X. Public Participation Appendix A to the Preamble—Proposed Amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards I. Introduction This document proposes to upgrade the school bus occupant protection requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, primarily by amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. (FMVSS) No. 222, “School bus passenger seating and crash protection” (49 CFR 571.222), and by amendments to FMVSS Nos. 207, 208, and 210. It also provides guidance to state and local jurisdictions on the subject of installing seat belts on large school buses (school buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms
(kg)(10,000 pounds (lb)) and asks for comments on the agency's consideration of “best practices” concerning the belts on the large buses. 1 1 “School bus” is defined in 49 CFR § 571.3 as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. A “bus” is a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. In this NPRM, when we refer to “large” school buses, we refer to those school buses with GVWRs of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb). These large school buses may transport as many as 90 students. “Small” school buses are school buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. Generally, these small school buses seat 15 persons or fewer, or have one or two wheelchair seating positions. This NPRM's most significant proposed changes to FMVSS No. 222 involve: • Increasing the minimum seat back height requirement from 20 inches from the seat's seating reference point
(SgRP)to 24 inches for all school buses; • Requiring small school buses to have a lap/shoulder belt at each passenger seating position (the buses are currently required to have lap belts); • Incorporating test procedures into the standard to test lap/shoulder belts in small school buses and voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder belts in large school buses to ensure both the strength of the anchorages and the compatibility of the seat with compartmentalization; and, • Requiring all school buses with seat bottom cushions that are designed to flip-up, typically for easy cleaning, to have a self-latching mechanism. The proposed guidance to state and local jurisdictions on best practices of installing seat belts on large school buses acknowledges that, in terms of the optimum passenger crash protection that can be afforded an individual passenger on a large school bus, a lap/shoulder belt system, together with compartmentalization, would afford that optimum protection. Thus, we encourage providers to consider lap/shoulder belts on large school buses. However, installing current lap/shoulder belts on large school buses would reduce the passenger carrying capacity of large buses. If children were diverted to other means of transport to school, such as transport by smaller, private vehicles, walking, or biking, the belts on the buses could result in an overall disbenefit to pupil transportation safety due to the children displaced from the large school buses having to find less safe modes of transportation to get to or from school or related events. Thus, we are not proposing to require lap/shoulder belts on large school buses, and we recommend providers to ascertain whether installing lap/shoulder belts would reduce the number of children that are transported to school on large school buses. II. Background The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses and school bus equipment. In response to this legislation, NHTSA revised several of its safety standards to improve existing requirements for school buses, extended ones for other vehicle classes to those buses, and issued new safety standards exclusively for school buses. FMVSS No. 222, one of a set of new standards for school buses, improves protection to school bus passengers during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. Effective since 1977, FMVSS No. 222 contains occupant protection requirements for school bus seating positions and restraining barriers. Its requirements for school buses with GVWR's of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less differ from those set for school buses with GVWR's greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), because the “crash pulse” or deceleration experienced by the small school buses is more severe than that of the large buses in similar collisions. For the small school buses, the standard includes requirements that all seating positions must be equipped with properly installed lap or lap/shoulder seat belt assemblies and anchorages for passengers. 2 NHTSA decided that seat belts were necessary on small school buses to provide adequate crash protection for the occupants. For the large school buses, FMVSS No. 222 relies on requirements for “compartmentalization” to provide passenger crash protection. Investigations of school bus crashes prior to issuance of FMVSS No. 222 found the school bus seat was a significant factor in causing injury. NHTSA found that the seat failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak, too low, and too hostile (39 FR 27584; July 30, 1974). In response to this finding, NHTSA developed a set of requirements which comprise the “compartmentalization” approach. 2 Lap/shoulder belts and appropriate anchorages for the driver and front passenger (if provided) seating position, lap belts and appropriate anchorages for all other passenger seating positions. Compartmentalization ensures that passengers are cushioned and contained by the seats in the event of a school bus crash by requiring school bus seats to be positioned in a manner that provides a compact, protected area surrounding each seat. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a padded and protective restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. Compartmentalization minimizes the hostility of the crash environment and limits the range of movement of an occupant. The compartmentalization approach ensures that high levels of crash protection are provided to each passenger independent of any action on the part of the occupant. III. The Issue of Seat Belts on Large School Buses NHTSA has considered the question of whether seat belts should be required on large school buses from the inception of compartmentalization and the school bus safety standards. NHTSA has been repeatedly asked to require belts on buses, and has repeatedly concluded that compartmentalization provides a high level of safety protection that obviates the safety need for a Federal requirement necessitating the installation of seat belts. Further, the agency has been acutely aware that a decision on requiring seat belts in large school buses cannot ignore the implications of such a requirement on pupil transportation costs. The agency has been attentive to the fact that, as a result of requiring belts on large school buses, school bus purchasers would have to buy belt-equipped vehicles regardless of whether seat belts would be appropriate for their needs. NHTSA has concluded that those costs should not be imposed on all purchasers of school buses when large school buses are currently very safe. In the area of school transportation especially, where a number of needs are competing for limited funds, persons responsible for school transportation might want to consider other alternative investments to improve their pupil transportation programs which can be more effective at reducing fatalities and injuries than seat belts on large school buses, such as by acquiring additional new school buses to add to their fleet, or implementing improved pupil pedestrian and driver education programs. Since each of these efforts competes for limited funds, the agency has maintained that those administrators should decide how their funds should be allocated. IV. Studies Nonetheless, throughout the past 30 years that compartmentalization and the school bus safety standards have been in effect, the agency has openly and continuously considered the merits of a seat belt requirement for large school buses. 3 The issue has been closely analyzed by other parties as well, such as the National Transportation Safety Board, and the National Academy of Sciences. Various reports have been issued, the most significant of which are described below. 3 Through the years, NHTSA has been petitioned about seat belts on large school buses. (See, e.g., denials of petitions to require seat belt anchorages, 41 FR 28506 (July 12, 1976), 48 FR 47032 (October 17, 1983); response to petition for rulemaking to prohibit the installation of lap belts on large school buses, 71 FR 40057 (July 14, 2006).) In a letter dated February 16, 2007, the National Association of Pupil Transportation
(NAPT)petitioned the agency “to initiate rulemaking on occupant protection in school buses.” NAPT said that it did not support the installation of lap belts in large school buses, nor the installation of lap/shoulder belts. NAPT stated it “will only support changes to compartmentalization when we are sure that those changes will not compromise student safety in any way.” NAPT requested that the agency review FMVSS No. 222, “with the goal of establishing a safety system that will definitively enhance the current passenger crash protection for all children that ride a school bus.” NAPT also advocated a public education program emphasizing the importance of safe school bus transportation. Studies • *National Transportation Safety Board, 1987* In 1987, the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)reported on a study of forty-three post-standard school bus crashes investigated by the Safety Board. NTSB concluded that most fatalities and injuries in school bus crashes occurred because the occupant seating positions were directly in line with the crash forces, and that seat belts would not have prevented those injuries and fatalities. (NTSB/SS-87/01, Safety Study, Crashworthiness of Large Post-standard School Buses, March 1987, National Transportation Safety Board.) • *National Academy of Sciences, 1989* A 1989 National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)study concluded that the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses were insufficient to justify a Federal mandate for installation. The NAS also stated that funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might be better spent on other school bus safety programs with the potential to save more lives and reduce more injuries. (Special Report 222, Improving School Bus Safety, National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1989.) • *National Transportation Safety Board, 1999* In 1999, NTSB reported on six school bus crashes it investigated in which passenger fatalities or serious injuries occurred away from the area of vehicle impact. NTSB found compartmentalization to be an effective means of protecting passengers in school bus crashes. However, because many of those passengers injured in the six crashes were believed to have been thrown from their compartments, NTSB believed other means of occupant protection should be examined. (NTSB/SIR-99/04, Highway Safety Report, Bus Crashworthiness Issues, September 1999, National Transportation Safety Board.) • *National Academy of Science, 2002* In 2002, NAS published a study that analyzed the safety of various transportation modes used by school children to get to and from school and school-related activities. The report concluded that each year there are approximately 815 school transportation fatal injuries per year. Two percent were school bus-related, compared to 22 percent due to walking/bicycling, and 75 percent from passenger car crashes, especially those with teen drivers. The report stated that changes in any one characteristic of school travel can lead to dramatic changes in the overall risk to the student population. Thus, NAS concluded, it is important for school transportation decisions to take into account all potential aspects of changes to requirements to school transportation. (Special Report 269, “The Relative Risks of School Travel: A National Perspective and Guidance for Local Community Risk Assessment,” Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2002.) • *National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002* In 2002, NHTSA issued a Congressional Report that detailed occupant safety on school buses and analyzed options for improving occupant safety. NHTSA concluded that compartmentalization effectively lowered injury measures by distributing crash forces with the padded seating surface. Lap belts showed little to no benefit in reducing serious/fatal injuries. The agency determined that properly used combination lap and shoulder belts have the potential to be effective in reducing fatalities and injuries for not only frontal collisions, but also rollover crashes where belt systems are particularly effective in reducing ejection. However, the addition of lap/shoulder belts on buses would increase capital costs and reduce seating capacity on the buses. (“Report to Congress, School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research, April 2002,” *http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/SchoolBus/SBReportFINAL.pdf.)* V. Federal Guidance on Belts on Large Buses This document provides guidance to state and local jurisdictions on the subject of installing seat belts on large school buses and asks for comments on the agency's consideration of “best practices” concerning the belts on the large buses. This guidance is provided in response to the information that the agency received at its July 11, 2007 public meeting in Washington, DC on seat belts on school buses (notice of public meeting, 72 FR 30739, June 4, 2007, Docket 28103). 4 In this meeting, NHTSA brought together a roundtable of State and local government policymakers, school bus and seat manufacturers, pupil transportation associations, and consumer groups to address: State and local policy perspectives regarding whether to require seat belts on school buses; information on the type of seat belt system designs that are currently being offered on large school buses; the economic impact that implementation of seat belt requirements for school buses (including purchase and maintenance of belts) have on States and local school districts; and the experience of schools and States in training and educating children, parents and drivers to use seat belts on large school buses. 5 At the meeting, participants requested that NHTSA provide up-to-date Federal guidance on whether seat belts should be provided on school buses, and whether lap belts should or should not be installed. 4 NHTSA also received written comments to docket 28103. We will address all relevant issues raised in those comments in today's NPRM and in a final rule or other rulemaking document following today's NPRM. 5 A transcript of the July 11, 2007 public meeting is available in docket 28103. The agency has considered all of the comments made at the meeting. NHTSA found the following views particularly helpful: • Mr. Charles Hood of the Florida Department of Education related the State of Florida's experience with lap belts on school buses. Informally, Mr. Hood estimated that the lap belt usage rate in Florida was about 70 percent for elementary school students, 35 percent for middle school students, and 25 percent for high school students. Mr. Hood reported that vandalism and maintenance of the seat belts were not major concerns. Mr. Hood estimated that the annual charge to equip all of Florida's 1399 school buses with lap/shoulder belts would be about $14 million. • Mr. Hood believed that the key point of the debate is whether the three point belts will: Improve overall safety through the crash protection improvements that they provide, or reduce overall safety by potentially reducing the number of children who ride in school buses. Mr. Hood stated that States that require lap belts need Federal guidance as to whether they may or should continue to specify lap belts in their school buses. • Ms. Ann Roy Moore of the Huntsville, Alabama City Schools recommended that national agencies come up with some standards that could be used to address the issue of school bus safety generally and seat belt safety in particular. • Mr. Ken Hedgecock of Thomas Built Buses stated that two-point belts are on 27 percent of the school buses Thomas Built manufactures, and three-point belts are on 2 percent the school buses that it manufactures. Mr. Hedgecock said that the greatest concern relating to seat belts pertains to capacity and cost issues of the three-point belt system. The reduction in capacity and incremental costs of the three-point system may have the unintended consequence of transporting fewer children on the yellow school bus, thus negatively affecting the safety of our nation's children. Mr. Hedgecock recommended the following as it pertains to seat belts: Clarification is needed on the use of two-point belt systems versus three-point belt systems in school buses; clarification is needed on the designated seating position as it pertains to a seat with seat belts; and there is a need for clear performance standards for the integration of all systems: the school bus, the seat, and the belts. • Mr. Steve Wallen of Safeguard, a division of Indiana Mills Manufacturing Inc. (IMMI), stated that its testing shows that compartmentalization does well in front and rear impact crashes, but not particularly well in rollovers. Mr. Wallen recommends the FMVSSs should be amended so as to allow for lap/shoulder belts while maintaining compartmentalization to protect unbelted occupants. Mr. Wallen suggested that the FMVSSs specify requirements such that a school bus seat can withstand a crash with a student wearing a seat belt and one behind not wearing a seat belt at the same time. Mr. Wallen noted that retrofitting school buses is substantially more expensive and difficult than installing seats in new buses. • Ms. Robin Leeds of the National School Transportation Association
(NSTA)stated that a Federal mandate is not appropriate because of the costs. NSTA believes States and local school districts are in a better position to determine the best use of their resources than the Federal government. In the NSTA's view, the only way any safety belt program can be successful is if it has the full commitment of the school administration and of parents to make them work. NSTA also recommended that NHTSA develop standards for voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder belt systems so that “everybody knows what system to use when they do install those systems.” a. NHTSA School Bus Research Results Our guidance about seat belts on school buses also takes into account the agency's research findings assessing the efficacy of existing safety measures employed on school buses and possible improvements to school bus occupant protection. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) directed NHTSA to study and assess school bus occupant safety and analyze options for improvement. In response, the agency developed a research program to determine the real-world effectiveness of FMVSS No. 222 requirements for school bus passenger crash protection, evaluate alternative passenger crash protection systems in controlled laboratory tests, and provide findings to support rulemaking activities to upgrade the passenger crash protection for school bus passengers. The research program consisted of NHTSA first conducting a full-scale school bus crash test to determine a representative crash pulse. The crash test was conducted by frontally impacting a conventional style school bus (Type C) into a rigid barrier at 30 mph (48.3 km/h). The impact speed was chosen to ensure that sufficient energy would be imparted to the occupants in order to evaluate the protective capability of compartmentalization, plus provide a level at which other methods for occupant injury mitigation could be evaluated during sled testing. A 30 mph (48 km/h) impact into the rigid barrier is also equivalent to two vehicles of similar size impacting at a closing speed of approximately 60 mph (96 km/h), which was found to be prevalent in the crash database files. In the crash test, we used Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummies (representing adult and large teenage occupants), 5th percentile adult female (representing an average 12-year-old
(12YO)occupant), and a 6-year-old child dummy (representing an average 6-year-old
(6YO)occupant). The dummies were seated so that they were as upright as possible and as rearmost on the seat cushion as possible. The agency evaluated the risk of head injury recorded by the dummies (Head Injury Criterion (HIC15)), as well as the risk of chest (chest G's) and neck injury (Nij), 6 as specified in FMVSS No. 208 “Occupant crash protection.” 6 HIC15, Chest G, and Nij values are used to predict injury risk in frontal crashes. HIC15 is a measure of the risk of head injury, Chest G is a measure of chest injury risk, and Nij is a measure of neck injury risk. The reference values for these measurements are the thresholds for compliance used to assess new motor vehicles with regard to frontal occupant protection during crash tests, FMVSS No. 208. For HIC15, a score of 700 is equivalent to a 30 percent risk of a serious head injury (skull fracture and concussion onset). In a similar fashion, Chest G of 60 equates to a 20 percent risk of a serious chest injury and Nij of 1 equates to a 22 percent risk of a serious neck injury. For all these measurements, higher scores indicate a higher likelihood of risk. For example, a Nij of 2 equates to a 67 percent risk of serious neck injury while a Nij of 4 equates to a 99 percent risk. More information regarding these injury measures can be found at NHTSA's Web site ( *http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/airbags/rev_criteria.pdf* ). NHTSA then ran frontal crash test simulations at the agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC), using a test sled to evaluate passenger protection systems. Twenty-five sled tests using 96 test dummies of various sizes utilizing different restraint strategies were conducted that replicated the acceleration time history of the school bus full-scale frontal impact test. The goal of the laboratory tests was to analyze the dummy injury measures to gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of the occupant crash protection countermeasures. In addition to injury measures, dummy kinematics and interaction with restraints (i.e., seat backs and seat belts, as well as each other) were also analyzed to provide a fuller picture of the important factors contributing to the type, mechanism, and potential severity of any resulting injury. NHTSA studied three different restraint strategies:
(a)compartmentalization;
(b)lap belt (with compartmentalization); and,
(c)fore/aft loading. 7 7 Unbelted occupants in the aft seat will affect the kinematics of belted occupants in the fore seat due to seat back deformation. Similarly, belted occupant loading of the fore seat back thru the torso belt will affect the compartmentalization for unbelted occupants in the aft seat. Within the context of these restraint strategies, various boundary conditions were evaluated:
(a)Seat spacing—483 mm (19 inches), 559 mm (22 inches) and 610 mm (24 inches);
(b)seat back height—nominally 508 mm (20 inches) and 610 mm (24 inches); and,
(c)fore/aft seat occupant loading. Ten dummies were tested with misused or out-of-position
(OOP)lap or shoulder restraints. The restraints were misused by placing the lap belt too high up on the waist, placing the lap/shoulder belt placed behind the dummy's back, or placing the lap/shoulder belt under the dummy's arm. *The agency found the following with regard to compartmentalization:* • Low head injury values were observed for all dummy sizes, except when override 8 occurred. 8 Override means an occupant's head or torso translates forward beyond the forward seat back providing compartmentalization. • High head injury values or dummy-to-dummy contacts beyond the biofidelic range of the test dummy were produced when the large male dummy overrode the seat in front of it, while the high-back seats prevented this. • Low chest injury values were observed for all dummy sizes. • Based on dummy motion and interaction with each other, compartmentalization was sensitive to seat back height for the 50th percentile male dummy. • Compartmentalization of 6YO and 5th percentile female dummies did not appear to be sensitive to rear loading conditions. • Compartmentalization of the 50th percentile male dummy did not appear to be sensitive to seat spacing for the 50th percentile male dummy. *The agency found the following with regard to lap belts on large school buses:* • Head and chest injury values were low for all dummy sizes. • The average neck injury value was above the injury assessment reference value
(IARV)for all test dummies, and was 70 percent above for the 5th percentile female dummy. • Neck injury values increased for the 5th percentile female dummy when the seat spacing was increased from 483 mm (19 inches) to 559 mm (22 inches). *The agency found the following with regard to properly worn lap/shoulder belts on school buses:* • Head, chest and neck injury values were low for all size dummies and below those seen in the compartmentalization and lap belt results. • Average head injury values were, at most, about half those seen in the compartmentalization and lap belt results. • Neck injury values increased with application of rear loading for the 6YO and 5th percentile female dummies. • Lap/shoulder belt systems would require approximately 15 inches seat width per passenger seating position. The standard school bus bench seat is 39 inches wide, and is considered a three-passenger seat. If the width of the seat bench were increased to 45 inches for both seats on the left and right side of the school bus, the aisle width would be reduced to an unacceptable level. *NHTSA found that, for improperly worn lap/shoulder belts:* • Placing the shoulder belt behind the dummy's back resulted in dummy motion and average dummy injury values similar to lap belt restraint. • Placing the shoulder belt under the dummy's arm provided more restraint on dummy torso motions than when the belt is placed behind the back. Average dummy injury values for the 6YO were about the same as seen with lap/shoulder belts and 5th percentile female dummy injury values were between those seen in lap/shoulder belts and lap belts. b. Agency Recommended Best Practices School buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in the U.S. Every year, approximately 474,000 public school buses, transporting 25.1 million children to and from school and school-related activities, 9 travel an estimated 4.8 billion route miles. 10 Over the 11 years ending in 2005, there was an annual average of 26 school transportation related fatalities (11 school bus occupants (including drivers and passengers) and 15 pedestrians). 11 The bus occupant fatalities were comprised of six school-age children, with the remaining being adult drivers and passengers. 12 On average, there were 9 crashes per year in which an occupant was killed. The school bus occupant fatality rate of 0.23 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)is more than six times lower than the overall rate for motor vehicles of 1.5 per 100 million VMT. 13 9 School Transportation News, Buyers Guide 2007. 10 This value was reported by School Bus Fleet 2007 Fact Book. 11 “Traffic Safety Facts—School Transportation Related Crashes,” NHTSA, DOT HS 810 626. The data in this publication account for all school transportation-related deaths in transporting students to and from school and school related activities. This includes non-school buses used for this purpose when these vehicles are involved in a fatal crash. 12 For the crashes resulting in the 11 annual school bus occupant fatalities, 51 percent of the fatalities and 52 percent of the crashes were from frontal collisions. Traffic Safety Facts 2005, School Transportation-Related Crashes, DOT HS 810 626. 13 Traffic Safety Facts 2005, DOT HS 810 631. The agency's school bus research results indicated that lap/shoulder belts could enhance the safety of large school buses, such that a child who has a seat on the school bus and who is belted with a lap/shoulder belt on the bus would have an even lower risk of head and neck injury than on current large school buses. 14 Thus, if ample funds were available for pupil transportation, and pupil transportation providers could order and purchase a sufficient number of school buses needed to provide school bus transportation to all children, we would recommend that pupil transportation providers consider installing lap/shoulder belts on large school buses because of the enhancements that lap/shoulder belts could make to school buses. Realistically, however, we recognize that funds provided for pupil transportation are limited, and that the monies spent on lap/shoulder belts on large school buses would usually draw from the monies spent on other crucial aspects of school transportation, such as purchasing new school buses to ensure that as many children as possible are provided school bus transportation, on driver and pupil training on safe transportation practices, and on upkeep and maintenance of school buses and school bus equipment. Bearing these considerations in mind, we recommend that pupil transportation providers consider lap/shoulder belts on large school buses *only if* there would be no reduction in the number of children that are transported to or from school or related events on large school buses. Reducing bus ridership would likely result in more student fatalities, since walking and private vehicles are less safe than riding a large school bus without seat belts. 14 The TEA-21 research program did not study whether belts could enhance the protection of compartmentalization in side crashes and rollovers. Most school bus fatalities occur in a crash involving a rollover, and the side crash fatalities are about as frequent as front crash fatalities. Our best practices recommendation seeks to reflect real world considerations about the safety record of school buses, the economic impact on school systems incurred by the costs of seat belts and the impact that lap/shoulder belts have on the seating capacity of large school buses. Our laboratory test results indicate that our test dummies measured better head protection performance when lap/shoulder belts were properly used with compartmentalization than compared to compartmentalization alone. However, best practices compel us to acknowledge that installation of lap/shoulder belts, as currently designed, reduce the number of seats offered to students, resulting in fewer children riding school buses, exposing more children to higher safety risks in alternative forms of transport to or from school or related events, and a probable overall net safety disbenefit due to their installation. Best practices compel us to encourage pupil transportation providers to make a comprehensive analysis of their needs and determine how lap/shoulder belts on large school buses accord with those needs. The best practices approach we have developed allows States the leeway to decide whether to require seat belts on large school buses, and whether lap only or lap/shoulder belts should be ordered. Given the tradeoff noted above, States should be permitted the flexibility of deciding whether to order large school buses with the seat belt safety enhancements after considering the excellent safety record of large school buses with compartmentalization, the benefits of allocating resources to belts as opposed to alternative safety measures, and the means available to ensure that the belts would be used. If a State were to determine that lap/shoulder belts are in its best interest, NHTSA encourages the State to install those systems. Today's document proposes performance requirements for the lap/shoulder belts, to ensure they will work well in a crash even if voluntarily installed. Certain highway safety grant funds may continue to be used to fund the purchase and installation of seat belts (lap or lap/shoulder) on school buses. Annually, all States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. territories receive NHTSA Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Formula Grant Funds. A wide range of behavioral highway safety activities that help reduce crashes, deaths, and injuries, including seat belt-related activities, qualify as eligible costs under the Section 402 program. Each State determines how to allocate its funds based on its own priorities and identified highway safety problems as described in an annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP). As with all proposed expenditures of Section 402 funds, the purchase and installation of seat belts on school buses must be identified as a need in the State's HSP and comply with all requirements under 23 U.S.C. Part 1200. Section 402 funds may not be used to purchase the school bus in its entirety, but may fund only the incremental portion of the bus cost directly related to the purchase and installation of seat belts. We would advise States that are considering purchasing seat belts for school buses to be guided by the proposed standards in this notice of proposed rulemaking. c. Guidance on Lap Belts on Large School Buses In the July 11, 2007 public meeting, some participants asked for guidance on whether lap belts should be prohibited on large school buses. The question was asked in the aftermath of school bus research studies that found lap belts were associated with increased risk of injury on large school buses. 15 15 See the results of NHTSA's school bus research program (Report to Congress, School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research, *supra* ). In addition, a 1985 study by Transport Canada provided data comparing the reaction of three belted and three unbelted 5th percentile adult female anthropomorphic test dummies in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal collision of a large school bus meeting compartmentalization requirements. The results indicated that the belted dummies experienced higher head accelerations, lower chest accelerations and more severe neck extension than did the unbelted ones. Accordingly, the study concluded that the use of a lap belt system in a school bus “may result in more severe head and neck injuries for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a severe frontal collision.” (School Bus Safety Study, January 1985). After analyzing the Transport Canada study, NHTSA could not conclude from the report's findings that belts degraded the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system rendered inoperative the safety of large school buses, but NHTSA acknowledged that the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur. (Docket No. 85-14; Notice 02, RIN 2127-AB84, March 22, 1989). After considering the data and other information on lap belts on large school buses, NHTSA does not believe there is a need to prohibit lap belts on the buses. In its 1999 report on bus crashworthiness, the NTSB concluded that the compartmentalization requirement for school buses in FMVSS No. 222 is incomplete in addressing school bus occupant protection in rollovers and lateral impacts from large vehicles, in that in such crashes, passengers do not always remain completely within the seating compartment. Although we have not found a safety need exists with respect to those non-frontal crashes to warrant requiring seat belts on large school buses, 16 we have always permitted States to choose to require the belts over and above the Federally required compartmentalization in the school buses they purchase. 16 We reiterate our conclusion that the overall potential benefits of requiring lap belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. NAS has also suggested that the funds used for required seat belts might be better used in other school bus safety programs. Special Report 222 (1989), *supra.* We realize that laboratory research, including our own on lap belted dummies, shows relatively poor performance of lap belts in large school buses. However, this research involved severe frontal impacts. We cannot make a determination, based on the results of the limited testing with lap belt restraints in a severe frontal crash condition, that the addition of lap belts in large school buses reduces overall occupant protection. Lap belts are required in three States (New York (1987), New Jersey (1994), Florida (2001)), in many other school districts, and in special-needs equipped school buses. NHTSA has examined in depth New York State school bus crash data for lap belt equipped and non-belt equipped buses, and could not conclude that lap belts either helped or hurt occupant injury outcomes. VI. Proposed Upgrades to Occupant Crash Protection After considering the findings of NHTSA's school bus research program, we have decided to issue this NPRM to propose several sets of upgrades to the school bus safety requirements. The first set of upgrades involves improving the compartmentalized school bus interior on both small and large school buses. Seat back height would be increased from 20 inches to 24 inches to reduce the potential for passenger override in a crash, and school buses with seat bottom cushions that are designed to flip-up, typically for easy cleaning, would need a self-latching mechanism. The proposal to raise seat back height responds to findings from the agency's school bus research program, while the proposal for self-latching mechanisms responds to an NTSB recommendation to NHTSA (H-84-75). The second set of upgrades involves specifics about the occupant protection requirements required for passengers of small school buses (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less). In response to NHTSA's school bus research findings, this NPRM proposes to require small school buses to have lap/shoulder belts instead of just lap belts. The lap/shoulder belts would have to fit all passengers ages 6 through adult, and be equipped with retractors. The lap/shoulder belts would have to meet the existing anchorage strength requirements for lap/shoulder belts in FMVSS No. 210 and would be subject to new requirements for belt anchor location and torso belt adjustability. FMVSS No. 207 would also be amended to apply to passenger seats in small school buses. A newly-developed “quasi-static” test requirement (discussed in the next section of this preamble) would be adopted into FMVSS No. 222 to test school bus seats with lap/shoulder belts, to help ensure that seat backs incorporating lap/shoulder belts are strong enough to withstand the forward pull of the torso belts in a crash and the forces imposed on the seat from unbelted passengers to the rear of the belted occupants. These requirements would add to existing compartmentalization requirements for seat performance (e.g., seat performance forward, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 222, and seat performance rearward, S5.1.4). A minimum seat belt width of 15 inches would be specified for all school bus seats with lap/shoulder belts. The third set of upgrades involves requirements for voluntarily-installed seat belts on large school buses. For large school buses with voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder belts, the vehicle would be subject to the requirements described above for lap/shoulder belts on small school buses, except FMVSS No. 207 would not apply to the passenger seats. The quasi-static test procedures for small school buses would slightly vary from those applying to seats on large school buses with voluntary lap/shoulder belts, to account for crash characteristic differences of large school buses versus small school buses. (Due to the mass and other characteristics of the vehicles, in crashes small school buses are subject to higher severity forces than large school buses.) For large school buses with voluntarily-installed lap belts, the vehicles would be required to meet FMVSS No. 210 requirements of a loading force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) per seating position. This would be consistent with the existing lap belt loading requirement for small school buses and light vehicles with lap belt only systems. These proposed requirements are discussed below. 17 In addition, NHTSA has prepared a Technical Analysis that, among other things, presents a detailed analysis of data, engineering studies, and other information supporting these proposals. 18 A copy of this Technical Analysis will be placed in the docket. 17 In Appendix A to this preamble, we list the FMVSSs affected by this NPRM and the proposed amendments to those standards. 18 NHTSA Technical Analysis to Support Upgrading the Passenger Crash Protection in School Buses (September 2007). a. Improving the Compartmentalized School Bus Interior of Both Small and Large School Buses • *Seat back height.* At present, school bus seat back height is specified at S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222 to be at a minimum 508 millimeters
(mm)(20 inches (in)). In this NPRM, we propose that the minimum seat back height for school bus seats be raised to 610 mm (24 in). In NHTSA's school bus research program, when dummies representing older students were compartmentalized with current 20-inch high seat backs, the dummies were much more likely to override the seat and make head contact with test dummies that were placed in seats forward of the dummies. While the injury potential of these contacts was not quantifiable, dummies overriding seats means that the compartmentalization was not working. The highest HIC 15 value was registered when a 50th percentile male dummy behind a 20-inch seat back contacted the seat back two rows ahead. In cases where incidental contact did occur, the HIC 15 values tended to be very high. In two cases, the HIC 15 values were over 2,000 and the third was over 5,000. For the 24-inch seat backs, there was only dummy interaction between the rows of seats if both the forward and rearward dummies were 50th percentile male dummies. The high seat back seats effectively prevented the passengers from overriding the seat backs. In the past, NHTSA has been informed that with the higher seat backs, drivers are not able to see and supervise the children. However, NHTSA is not aware of data showing that the higher seat backs result in supervision problems. NHTSA notes that four states (Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio) plus many other school districts require their school bus seats to have 24-inch seat backs. These states represent about 20 percent of all students in public transportation. We have received no reports of supervisory or safety related issues resulting from the higher seat backs from these jurisdictions. We request public comment on this issue. • *Restraining barrier height.* We propose to amend S5.2.2, “Barrier position and rear surface area,” to specify that the rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that in the front projected view, the restraining barrier's surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 610 mm (24 inches) above the seating reference point, shall be not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 610 (inches multiplied by 24). We are also proposing that restraining barriers have a minimum width of 75 percent of the seat bottom cushion at the upper portion of the restraining barrier. This is needed to ensure that the restraining barrier has sufficient width and area so that it sufficiently restrains passengers. Further, we seek to clarify that the restraining barrier's perimeter need not coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required if that seat back is higher than the minimum required by FMVSS No. 222. (Such a position would be consistent with an April 8, 1977 NHTSA interpretation letter to Wayne Corporation.) • *Seat cushion latches.* At present, FMVSS No. 222 at S5.1.5 requires seat bottom cushions to withstand an upward force that is five times the weight of the seat bottom cushion. S5.1.5 specifies that, with all manual attachment devices between the seat and the seat cushion in the manufacturer's designated position for attachment, the seat cushion shall not separate from the seat at any attachment point when subjected to an upward force in Newtons of 5 times the mass of the seat cushion in kilograms and multiplied by 9.8 m/s 2 , applied in any period of not less than 1 nor more than 5 seconds, and maintained for 5 seconds. This text of S5.1.5 has remained unchanged since 1976. NHTSA notes that in order to allow the cushion to be removed or flipped up for maintenance, some seat cushions have been designed to attach to the rear seat frames with clips that swivel on and off the frame and with stationary clips that slip under the front frame member. Such cushion designs meet S5.1.5. In 1984, the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)issued a recommendation to NHTSA (H-84-75) that seat cushions be attached with a fail-safe latching device to ensure that the cushions remain in their installed position during impacts and rollovers. This recommendation was closed based on a 1987 survey of NHTSA school bus manufacturers which indicated that the manufacturers would voluntarily implement the NTSB recommendation. Data indicate, however, that the school bus manufacturers did not voluntarily implement the NTSB recommendation. NTSB believes there was a safety need for a requirement for a latching device because a 1987 NTSB study reported that seat cushions came loose in 16 of 44 school bus crashes. In four of the 16 crashes, all of the seat cushions came loose, and minor injuries were caused by the loose seat cushions in three of the 16 crashes. The NTSB concluded that seat cushions came free because clips were not secured to the seat frame or were loose and free to rotate. The 1987 report indicated the following safety concerns associated with loose cushions: Flying cushions can strike and injure occupants; occupants can fall through the opening left by the cushion; loose cushions may block exit routes; and loose cushions may hide injured occupants. In the agency's school bus research program, seat cushions became detached in the frontal crash of a large school bus. To address the safety concerns raised by the NTSB, NHTSA is proposing to amend S5.1.5 to require latching devices for school bus seats that have latches that allow them to flip up or be removed for easy cleaning. We also propose a test procedure that would require the latch to activate after a 22 kg (48 lb) mass is placed on top of the seat at the seat cushion's center. The 48 lb weight is that of an average 6-year-old child. The test would ensure that any unlatched seat cushion would latch when a child occupant sits on the seat. b. Additional Occupant Protection Requirements for Small School Buses (School Buses With a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or Less) • The agency proposes that small school buses be required to have lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. Since the FMVSSs were first promulgated, small school buses passenger seats have been required to have passenger lap belts (defined as Type 1 belts in FMVSS No. 209) as specified in FMVSS No. 208, that meet the lap belt strength requirements specified in FMVSS No. 210. Lap belts were required because the ratio of the mass of a potential collision partner to that of a small school bus is larger than for a large school bus. Thus, for vehicle-to-vehicle collisions, the deceleration of a small school bus will be greater than for a large school bus. However, before today, we have never sought to require lap/shoulder belts for all passenger seats in small school buses. 19 19 FMVSS No. 208 (S4.4.5) requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less manufactured on or after September 1, 2007 to have lap/shoulder belts (Type 2 belts) at all passenger seating positions other than side-facing positions. Today's NPRM would be consistent with that requirement for the non-school buses. (We note that the heading of S4.4.5 of FMVSS No. 208 should specify that the section does not apply to small school buses. See *http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf89/293807_web.pdf* , NHTSA letter February 19, 2004, explaining the typographical error. Today's NPRM would correct the typographical error in S4.4.5.) The primary reason for proposing lap/shoulder belts is the increased level of protection that children riding in a small school bus gain by having a lap/shoulder belt. Lap/shoulder belts provide an increased level of protection from lap belts by reducing the potential of head and neck injuries in frontal impacts. The relatively poor performance of lap belted dummies in NHTSA's frontal sled test research is of greater concern for small school buses. Frontal crashes will tend to be more severe for these smaller school buses than for large school buses. Properly worn lap/shoulder belts will reduce the potential negative effects of lap belts in severe frontal crashes while maintaining and potentially enhancing the protection offered in other crash modes. In NHTSA's 2002 Report to Congress, *School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research* , NHTSA noted that the results of the electronic data and video data showed that the dummies restrained with lap and shoulder belts had a lower risk of head and neck injuries than unbelted dummies. Finally, while installation in large school buses could result in a 17 percent reduction in seating capacity, small school buses are already configured with seating positions that can accommodate lap/shoulder belts without a reduction in seating capacity. 20 20 The typical seating configuration of small school buses is based on five rows of 762 mm (30 inches) two passenger seats. Therefore, the installation of lap/shoulder belts into each seating position should not result in a reduction in capacity. • *Adjustability of the belt system.* NHTSA proposes that requirements be added to FMVSS No. 210 that would ensure that the seat belt anchorages on school bus seats are designed so that the belt system will properly fit the range of children on a school bus: The average 6-year-old (represented by the Hybrid III 6-year-old child dummy (45 inches tall/52 pounds)); the average 12-year-old (represented by the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy (59 inches/108 pounds)) and; the large high school student (represented by the 50th percentile adult male dummy (69 inches/172 pounds)). Proper fit for children prevents injury and would ensure that the system performs properly in a crash. In addition, if the lap/shoulder seat belts did not fit the child occupant properly, there is an increased likelihood that the child would misuse the lap/shoulder belt system by placing the shoulder portion under the arm or behind the back. NHTSA's school bus research results showed that when the shoulder belt was placed behind the back, the restraint system functioned like a lap belt. Lap belts produced a higher risk of neck injury in the testing program. In the agency's school bus research program, we saw examples of improper seat anchorage location. The first set of lap/shoulder belt seats supplied for testing in the school bus research program did not have the anchorages of the lap/shoulder belts located so that the seat belts would fit appropriately on any of the test dummies. The torso belt came across the dummies' heads and necks and the lap belt was high on the abdomen instead of on the hips. After consultation with the seat manufacturer, a second set of lap/shoulder belt equipped seats had seat belt anchorages such that the seat belts fit all of the test dummies (6-year-old to 50th percentile male) properly. The torso belt anchorage was higher on the seat back to allow for proper placement of the torso belt on taller people. 21 Also, as in the previously supplied seats, the shoulder belt had an adjustable anchorage that slides up and down a second shoulder belt so it could properly adjust for the sitting height of the typical 6-year-old through the adult size passenger. 21 A torso belt anchorage located below the adult dummy's shoulder may increase the spinal compression loading in a crash, would increase the risk of the dummy sliding under the belt in a crash, and would increase the risk of spinal and abdominal injuries. The allowable location for the shoulder belt is specified in Figure 1 of the current FMVSS No. 210. NHTSA has tentatively determined that design requirements for the seat belt anchorages should be specified such that the belts would be sure to fit occupants ranging in size from the average 6-year-old child to the average adult male. The anchorage locations were determined by placing test dummies (6-year-old, 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male) into the school bus seats. The results are reported in NHTSA's Vehicle Research Test Center
(VRTC)Test Report, *Test Methodology for Lap/Shoulder Belts in School Buses.* NHTSA has tentatively decided to apply the location requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.3.1. See Figure 1 of this preamble, below. In addition, for the reasons discussed in the agency's technical report supporting this NPRM, we propose that school bus seats with lap/shoulder belts have a minimum shoulder belt adjustment range between 280 mm (11 inches) above the seating reference point and the school bus torso belt anchor point, to ensure that the shoulder belt will fit passengers ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 50th percentile adult male. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EP21NO07.000 BILLING CODE 4910-59-C • The agency also proposes that the seat belt anchorages, both torso and lap, be required to be integrated into the seat structure. NHTSA proposes such integration because if we do not, we are concerned that some manufacturers could incorporate some seat belt anchorages into the bus floor, sidewall, or roof. Such installation into places other than the seat structure could potentially injure unbelted school bus passengers in a crash, or obstruct passengers during emergency egress. However, we seek comment on whether there are torso and lap belt anchorage designs available, other than integrated into the seat back, that would not impede access to emergency exits or become an injury hazard to unbelted passengers. Improperly designed lap belts include those in which the buckle stalk is too long and the lap belt portion of the belt assembly rides high on the 6-year-old child's abdomen. For a proper fit, the lap belt portion must fit low across the hips so that the crash loads are distributed across the pelvis and not the abdominal area. Loading of the abdomen rather than the pelvis increases the risk of internal injuries caused by the seat belt penetration into the soft tissue of the abdomen. We are aware that lap belts supplied to some states have a long buckle end that causes the lap belt to not fit low across the hips of the passengers. The long buckle end also causes problems with securing child restraints. 22 However, our understanding is that long buckle ends have been provided out of a privacy concern about school bus personnel fastening lap belts near the crotch area of young passengers. Comments are requested on whether long buckle stalks should be retained on lap belts because of the privacy issues, even if the long buckle stalks may result in misplacement of the lap belt across the child's abdomen and difficulty in child restraint attachment. 22 The short buckle length is recommended in NHTSA's pamphlet on the Proper Use of Child Safety Restraint Systems in School Buses. *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/buses/busseatbelt/index.html* . • *Seat belt anchor strength for lap/shoulder belts* . Small school buses have been required to have lap belts since the issuance of FMVSS No. 222. The anchorages for these lap belts have had to be certified to FMVSS No. 210. Standard No. 210 specifies that for multiple seat belts anchored to the same seat, the belts are pulled simultaneously. In today's proposal to require lap/shoulder belts in small school buses, we propose that small school buses should meet the existing small school bus anchorage strength requirements for lap/shoulder belts in FMVSS No. 210. Those existing strength requirements, specified in S4.2.2 for lap/shoulder belt anchorages, specify that the torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt be tested simultaneously with the lap belt portion at 13,344 N (3,000 pounds) each for each belt loop. For example, a three-position school bus seat is required to withstand an 80 kN (18,000 pound) test load. The calculation for the seat belt anchorage load requirement in a three passenger seat is (three times the shoulder belt plus three times the lap belt applied simultaneously) = ((3 × 13,344 N) + (3 × 13,344 N)) = 80,064 N (18,000 pounds). • *Seat belt retractors* . For school bus seat belts, there is at present no requirement for seat belt retractors. This is because the only seat belt systems currently installed in school buses are lap belts where retractors are not needed for the seat belt system to function properly. We propose to add a new section of regulatory text (S7.1.5 to FMVSS No. 208) to ensure that retractors are provided for school bus lap/shoulder seat belt assemblies, and that the retractors meet the same requirements as seat belt retractors for passenger cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. • *Maximum number of lap/shoulder seat belts and minimum seat width* . In S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222, NHTSA currently considers the number of seating positions on a bench seat to be the width of the bench seat in millimeters (W), divided by 381 and rounded to the nearest whole number. This W value is used to calculate the compartmentalization requirements for seat backs on all school buses and the number of lap belt only seating positions that must meet the provisions of FMVSS No. 208 and 210 for small school buses. The agency will continue to consider W to be the number of seating positions per bench seat with optional provided lap belts on large school buses as well as the compartmentalization requirements for all school buses, except that the divisor will be 380 rather than 381. (Using 380 instead of 381 would just be for simplicity.) However, for the seating positions on small school buses with required lap/shoulder belts and on large school buses with optional lap/shoulder belts, we are defining the number of seating positions
(Y)in a slightly different way. Y is the total seat width in millimeters divided by 380, rounded down to the nearest whole number. Under the definitions of W and the proposed definition of Y, a 1,118 mm (44 inch) wide seat would have W = 3 seating positions for the purposes of calculating the magnitude of the compartmentalization requirements to apply to the seat back, but only Y = 2 seating positions for determining the lap/shoulder belts installed on the seat. 23 The result of this “Y” calculation would be that each passenger seating position in a school bus seat with a lap/shoulder belt would have a minimum seating width of 380 mm (15 inches). A proposed minimum seating position width of 15 inches for seats with lap/shoulder belts is needed because school buses are typically purchased based on maximum seating capacity, and we seek to ensure that manufacturers will not install lap/shoulder belt anchorages that are so narrowly spaced that they would only fit the smallest occupants. 23 “Y” would also be used to determine the loads to be applied to the shoulder belts for the quasi-static test, discussed below in this preamble. See also paragraphs S5.1.6.5.5(a) and
(b)of the proposed regulatory text. • *FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems* . At present, FMVSS No. 207 specifically excludes all bus passenger seats from its general performance requirements. FMVSS No. 207 tests the forward strength of the seat attachment to the vehicle by replicating the load that would be applied through the seat center of gravity by inertia in a 20 g vehicle deceleration. If seat belt anchors are attached to the seat, FMVSS No. 207 requires that the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage load be applied at the same time the FMVSS No. 207 inertial load is applied. Both loads are applied simultaneously because during a crash, the seat with an integrated seat belt (such as the seat in a school bus) will have to sustain the loading due to both the seat mass and the seat belt load from the restrained occupant. The agency is proposing to apply FMVSS No. 207 to small school buses with lap/shoulder belts because the load imposed by FMVSS No. 207 appears to be greater than the load that would be imposed by FMVSS No. 222's seat performance requirements (S5.1.3). If we assume a seat mass of 35 kg (77 pounds), 24 the FMVSS No. 207 load would be 6,867 N (1,544 pounds). For a school bus seat with two seating positions, the FMVSS No. 210 load would be a total of 53,376 N (12,000 pounds). So if FMVSS No. 207 were applied it would add 12 percent [((53,376 N + 6,867 N)/53,376 N) − 1)] to the total load. This would result in a more stringent test procedure. Comments are requested on whether FMVSS No. 207 should be applied to small school bus passenger seats. 24 A 991 mm (39 inch) wide C.E. White seat weights 34.5 kg (76 pounds). See *www.cewhite.com/cr-series-prod_info.html.* • A newly-developed “quasi-static” test requirement would apply to test school bus seats with lap/shoulder belts to ensure that the top of the seat back incorporating the seat belt anchorage does not pull too far forward due to the torso belt loading of the belted occupant and jeopardize the protection of unbelted passengers to the rear of the belted occupants. The quasi-static test is discussed in the next section. The quasi-static test requirements would be in addition to existing compartmentalization requirements for seat performance (e.g., seat performance forward, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 222, and seat performance rearward, S5.1.4), and would be in addition to the FMVSS No. 210 test for the seat belt anchorages, and would be in addition to the FMVSS No. 207 test. A new school bus seat (test specimen) would be used for each of these tests. c. Additional Occupant Protection Requirements for Large School Buses With Voluntarily-Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belts • Large school buses with voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder seat belts would be subject to the requirements described above for lap/shoulder belts on small school buses, except FMVSS No. 207 would not apply to the passenger seats, 25 and as explained in the next section, the quasi-static test procedures for small school buses would slightly vary from those applying to seats on large school buses with voluntary lap/shoulder belts, to account for the relative severity of the anticipated frontal crash conditions for each school bus type. 25 The agency does not believe there is a need to apply FMVSS No. 207 to large school buses that do not have seat belts because the load imposed by 207 appears to be lower than the load that would be imposed by FMVSS No. 222's seat performance requirements (S5.1.3). Under FMVSS No. 222, there are two forward forces applied to the seat back, by a lower bar and an upper bar. The lower bar force has a maximum value of 3,114 N (700 pounds) times the number of seating positions. In the seat performance (forward strength) test, after its initial application, the lower bar load is then reduced by half, and then the loading bar is locked in place. Following this, the upper loading bar is applied. The upper loading bar force must stay in a force deflection curve that has a minimum value of 4,448 N (1,000 pounds) and a maximum of 10,676 N (2,400 pounds) once the loading bar displaces more than 127 mm (5 inches). If we assume a load in the middle of the force/deflection range, the total forward force on the seat back is 7,562 N (1,700 pounds). In comparison, if we assume a seat mass of 35 kg (77 pounds), the FMVSS No. 207 inertial loading applied to this school bus seat would be 6,867 N (1,544 pounds). Thus, the FMVSS No. 222 forward seat strength loads for a large school bus are a reasonable substitute for the FMVSS No. 207 inertial loads. Likewise, the agency does not believe there is a need to apply FMVSS No. 207 to large school buses that do have seat belts. The agency is proposing FMVSS No. 210 seat belt anchorage loads for large school buses, and has found that the proposed loads are in excess of peak loads that were applied to the attachment of the seat to the sled test fixture in a 12 to 13 g sled test simulating a large school bus barrier crash. Thus, this load measurement captured the inertial loading of the seat. It can therefore be argued that for large school bus seats, the proposed FMVSS No. 210 anchorage loading would exceed loading that incorporates the seat inertial loading, albeit at a lower deceleration level than the 20 g value required by FMVSS No. 207. The agency proposes that for large school buses with voluntarily installed lap/shoulder seat belts, the FMVSS No. 210 anchorage strength requirement should be identical to the requirements for passenger seat belt anchorages in smaller vehicles. We are not aware of any practicability concerns with meeting such anchorage strength requirements since the proposed level of performance for large school buses is already required of all other vehicles to which FMVSS No. 210 applies. For lap/shoulder belts, the torso and body blocks will be pulled at 13,334 N (3,000 pounds). However, the agency recognizes that large school bus vehicles experience lower crash forces in the passenger compartment than do small school buses and other passenger motor vehicles. Part of the reason for the difference in crash deceleration is that the large bus body is designed to slide relative to the underlying frame as observed in the frontal barrier crash test. Specifically, the large school bus experienced about 12-13 g peak deceleration during a 48.3 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash into a rigid barrier, compared to about 25 g for a small school bus. In real world vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, large school buses will also experience lower crash forces than would a small school bus in a similar crash. This difference is due to the greater mass of the large bus and consequent lower change in crash forces. During the development of this NPRM, NHTSA measured the dynamic loads to the seat belt anchorages on lap/shoulder belt-equipped two-passenger school bus seats from C.E. White Corporation and IMMI during crash simulation sled testing. The forces on the seat anchorages were measured using load cells attached to the sled buck and the attachment locations of the seat structure. The test was conducted using the 48.3 km/h (30 mph) school bus crash pulse that was used in the school bus research program. The seats had two 50th percentile adult male dummies restrained in lap/shoulder belts and two unbelted 50th percentile adult male dummies that struck the seat back. The total loads for both seating positions transmitted from the lap/shoulder belts, through the seat structure and anchorages to the floor for each seat are shown in Figures 2 and 3 for the C.E. White and IMMI seats, respectively. The highest loads experienced by the C.E. White seats revealed that the force was approximately 17,500 N (3,934 pounds) per seating position. EP21NO07.001 EP21NO07.002 This testing suggested that the total peak dynamic loading sustained by the seat belts was about 2/3 of that applied in FMVSS No. 210. Notwithstanding the above data, the agency believes that the anchorage strength provided by FMVSS No. 210 provides the foundation for seat belt performance and there is value in maintaining consistency in this foundation. We understand that this higher factor of safety may result in seats and anchorages being constructed with heavier materials and may in turn increase the weight and cost of providing seat belts on large school buses. However, it is also possible that those putting seat belt anchorages on large school buses may use existing designs for small school buses that have always needed to meet the same strength level that is now being proposed for large school buses. We request comment on the strength levels being proposed for large school buses in FMVSS No. 210. Would it be appropriate to reduce the strength level since the crash environment for large school buses will likely be less severe than for small school buses? How much could the load be reduced and still provide an appropriate safety margin in a variety of crash scenarios? What would be the cost and weight savings associated with a lesser requirement? d. Additional Requirements for Large School Buses With Voluntarily-Installed Lap Belts New large school buses with voluntarily-installed lap belts would be required to meet the requirements described in subsection
(a)of this section of the preamble, and the requirements proposed in this paragraph. This NPRM proposes that seat belt anchorages would have to meet FMVSS No. 210 requirements of a loading force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) per seating position. This would be consistent with the existing lap belt loading requirement for small school buses and light vehicles with lap belt only systems. VII. Quasi-Static Test for Lap/Shoulder Belts on Small and Large School Buses The agency has developed a quasi-static test procedure for lap/shoulder belt-equipped seats in school buses and proposes to apply this test to small and large school buses equipped with lap/shoulder belts. The test is intended to address possible safety problems caused by having both belted and unbelted passengers on the same school bus. School bus seats designed to provide compartmentalized protection must contain the child between well-padded seat backs that provide controlled ride-down in a crash. A school bus seat with a lap/shoulder belt would have the torso (shoulder) belt attached to the seat back. In a crash involving a belted child and an unbelted child aft of the belted occupant, the seat back would be subject to consecutive force applications from the belted occupant's torso loading the seat back *and* the force generated by impact of the unbelted passenger. The quasi-static test replicates this double-loading scenario and specifies limits on how far forward the seat back may displace. The test helps ensure that the top of a seat back does not pull too far forward and jeopardize the protection of compartmentalized passengers to the rear of the belted occupants, or diminish the torso restraint effectiveness for lap/shoulder belted occupants. 26 26 A quasi-static test was developed and is being proposed instead of a dynamic test because school bus manufacturers are familiar with quasi-static testing. The existing requirements in FMVSS No. 222 use a quasi-static test (the current compartmentalization seat performance requirements in S5.1.3) to assess the capability of the school bus seat to provide protection in a frontal crash. The agency believes that by using a quasi-static procedure for testing school bus seats, manufacturers would be able to test a large number of seats and a variety of design configurations without incurring the delay and additional cost of sending each configuration to an outside testing facility. The agency developed the quasi-static test by performing a sled test using the same large school bus crash pulse that was used in the school bus research program. We measured the loads on the shoulder belts and both lower parts of the lap belt. Two unbelted 50th percentile male dummies were positioned behind the seat that contained two restrained 50th percentile male dummies. Visual observation of seat kinematics and load cell data produced by the shoulder belts from this test revealed the following sequence of events: 1. The knees of the unbelted dummy to the rear struck the back of the forward seat, causing some seat back deflection. 2. The shoulder belt was loaded by the restrained dummy in the forward seat. 3. The shoulder belt load was reduced as the seat back to which it was attached deflected forward. 4. The shoulder belt loads reduced to approximately zero when the unbelted dummies' chests struck the forward seat back. 5. The forward seat back deflected further forward as the energy from the unbelted dummies was absorbed. This crash scenario is replicated in the quasi-static test. The load requirement for the quasi-static test is dependant upon the number of seating positions and also the likely seat capacity. A seat that has the minimal allowed overall seat width for either a two or three occupant seat will have a reduced loading requirement from other seats. 27 The agency is proposing that a 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) load per occupant be applied in the quasi-static test; however, seats with a minimal allowed overall seat width would have a 3,300 N (750 pounds) load per occupant applied. 28 27 A school bus bench seat has the minimum allowed overall width if the total seat width in millimeters minus 380Y is 25 mm (1 inch) or less. 28 Based on the assumption of a 5th percentile female occupant in a seating position as opposed to a 50th percentile male, we tentatively conclude that the proposed torso body block pull should be reduced in that situation to 3,300 N (750 pounds) from 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) or by approximately the same percentage as the ratio of the mass of a 5th percentile female to that of a 50th percentile male, i.e., 65 percent [48 kg/74 kg]. The reason for the reduced load requirement for the minimal width seats is that students at the 50th percentile male or larger size would not be able to simultaneously occupy each of the seating positions. For example, a 45 inch seat would have a seating capacity of three, or the minimum allowed overall seat width for a three occupant seat. However, a common practice used for the seating configuration in large school buses to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts has been to install a 1,143 mm (45 inches) three position seat on one side of the aisle and a 762 mm (30 inches) two position seat on the other side of the aisle in each row of the bus. To accommodate students larger than the 5th percentile female, schools typically seat two persons in the 1,143 mm (45 inches) seat and one person in the 762 mm (30 inches) seat. Because the seat width is not sufficient to accommodate the 50th percentile occupants at the full seating capacity (i.e., three in the 1,143 mm and two in the 762 mm seats), we are proposing that the quasi-static torso belt test have a reduced load. 29 29 We note that the total loading applied for a 45 inch seat under this proposal would be 9,900 N (3,300 N × three 5th percentile occupants) as compared to 10,000 N if it were tested for two 50th percentile occupants. A 30 inch seat would have a total load of 6,600 N (3,300 N × two 5th percentile occupants) rather than 5,000 N total load if one 50th percentile occupant were seated in the seat. We believe that if the seat has the minimal allowed overall seat width it is reasonable to reduce the total torso belt loading applied to the seat in the quasi-static test to a per occupant value below the loading applied for larger seating width, since larger occupants would not occupy those seats to the full seating capacity. To estimate the appropriate load value, we assume the worst case loading condition is approached when every seating position is occupied by a child as large as a 5th percentile adult female. 30 30 Of course, the seat could be used by occupants of other sizes and in other combinations. For example, two 50th percentile male occupants might occupy the outboard seating positions in a three position, 1,143 mm (45 inch) seat or a 50th percentile male and a smaller child might occupy a two seating position, 762 mm (30 inch) seat. However, we believe the loading applied by other occupant combinations will not result in drastically higher loading applied to the seat through the seat belts. We also believe the proposed loading requirements are practicable. Testing at NHTSA's Vehicle Research Test Center revealed that existing lap/shoulder belt equipped seats could meet a torso body block pull of 3,300 N (750 pounds) per occupant. 31 NHTSA in-vehicle testing at MGA Research Corporation of three-position, 1,143 mm (45 inches) seats with lap/shoulder belts in a large school bus, also revealed that these seats would pass the quasi-static test. 32 31 VRTC testing determined that the 1,143 mm (45 inch), three position seat and a 762 mm (30 inch), two position seat would collapse during the quasi-static test when a torso body block load of 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) at each seating position was used. 32 Research Testing For FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, Report No. 222R-MGA-2007-001, September 2006, MGA Research Corporation. For small school buses, this NPRM proposes that a 7,500 N (1,686 pounds) load per occupant be applied in the quasi-static test; however, seats with a minimal allowed overall seat width would have a 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) load per occupant applied. As explained in NHTSA's “Technical Analysis to Support Upgrading the Passenger Crash Protection in School Buses,” the torso belt loads are higher than for large school buses because small school buses experience higher crash accelerations than large school buses. a. Stage 1: Torso Belt Anchorage Displacement This part of the quasi-static test replicates steps 1 and 2 of the crash scenario above. The proposed procedure uses the knee and top loading bars that are currently specified in S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 222 (seat back strength), which replicate a passenger's knee and torso loading the forward seat back 33 and the FMVSS No. 210 upper torso body block. 34 The test procedure uses the bottom loading bar to replicate the knee loading by the unbelted rear passengers (based on W), then specifies a pull test on the shoulder belts at each seating position in the seat to replicate loading of the shoulder belt by the belted passengers (based on Y). Under the proposed test procedure, the large school bus shoulder belts would be pulled using the upper torso body block specified in Figure 3 of FMVSS No. 210 with a force of 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) at each seating position for large school buses, and a force of 7,500 N (1,686 pounds) for small school buses. 35 The proposed rule (S5.1.6.5.4) includes a very specific procedure for positioning the torso body block. The torso body block force would be applied in not less than 5 and not more than 30 seconds. We found that an applied load of 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) for large school buses was necessary to replicate the torso belt loading from the sled test and to get the similar seat response observed from high speed video. This is slightly higher than twice the highest reading of the shoulder belt load cell (2,161 N). For small school buses, a higher force is proposed because the small school bus crash pulse has twice the peak acceleration of the large school bus, i.e., approximately 25 g. 36 33 The current knee loading test procedure requires that initially a force of 3,114 N (700 pounds) times the number of seating positions in the test seat
(w)be applied to the seat back within 5 and not more than 30 seconds, and then the force is reduced to 1,557 N (350 pounds) times w. The knee loading bar is locked in this position for the remainder of the test. The current top loading test procedure requires an additional force through the top loading bar until 452 joules (4,000 inch-pounds) times w of energy is absorbed by the seat back. 34 The agency is considering a rulemaking that would replace the torso body block in FMVSS No. 210 with an updated force application device. If the upper torso body block in FMVSS No. 210 is changed, the body block discussed in this quasi-static procedure proposed today may be changed to the new force application device as well. 35 As discussed earlier in this section, these 5,000 N (1,124 pounds) and 7,500 N (1,686 pounds) values would be reduced depending on the width of the seat. 36 The rational for the load application is explained in the agency's Technical Analysis. At this mid-point of the quasi-static test when the torso block force is being applied, NHTSA would measure displacement of the torso belt anchorages. The criterion for passing this part of the test is that the torso belt anchorages must not displace forward more than a specified value. The value is a function of the vertical location of the anchorage and the angle of the seat back surface that compartmentalizes the occupants rearward of the seat being tested, i.e., the posterior surface of the seat back. Basically, for large school buses, the allowable displacement is equivalent to the amount of displacement that would result from the seat back deflecting forward 10 degrees past a vertical plane. 37 For large school buses, we propose that θ (theta) in the equation below be limited to 10 degrees as shown in Figure 9 of the proposed regulatory text. Thus, the total allowable forward horizontal displacement for large school buses would be: 37 The derivation of the equation defining this displacement limit is explained in the agency's Technical Analysis. Large School Bus Displacement Limit = (AH + 100)(tanθ + 0.174/cosθ) mm. For small school buses, the displacement limit would be equivalent to the amount of displacement resulting from a seat back deflecting forward 15 degrees past a vertical plane. The displacement limit would be determined using the equation: Small School Bus Displacement Limit = (AH + 100)(tanθ + 0.259/cosθ) mm. The allowed displacement for small school buses is greater than the limit for large school buses to account for our concerns about practicability of small school buses meeting the displacement criterion. As noted above, the goal of the torso belt anchorage displacement criterion is two-fold. The first goal is to assure that the seat back to which the torso belt is anchored has sufficient strength to restrain and protect the belted occupant in a frontal crash. The second goal is to assure that the seat back is still in a sufficiently upright position to compartmentalize unbelted occupants to the rear. Thus, we believe that the displacement limit should be narrow, to ensure that seat backs deviate as little as possible from the initial upright position. b. Stage 2: Energy Absorption Capability of the Seat Back The quasi-static test continues with procedures to replicate steps 3, 4 and 5 of the crash scenario above. After the torso anchorage displacement is measured, the torso body block load is released. Immediately after this load is released, forward load is applied to the seat back through the top loading bar. The seat back must be able to absorb the same amount of energy per seating position (452 joules (4,000 in-pounds)) as is required of a seat back under the compartmentalization requirement. However, for this quasi-static test, the seat back need not perform such that the top loading bar force must stay in the force/deflection corridor specified for the compartmentalization requirement. 38 This is because the torso body block load may have generated stresses in the seat frame that exceed the elastic limit of the material and result in residual strain. The seat back would still need to have the capability to absorb 452 joules of energy from the unbelted rear occupant, but the manner of absorbing the energy would not be as controlled as when impacting a seat back that had not been subjected to the previous loading from the seat belts. 38 A separate FMVSS No. 222 forward loading test is still performed on a different test specimen, one that was not subjected to the quasi-static test, to assure that in a crash, if the seat were not occupied by a belted passenger and it were impacted by an unbelted rearward passenger, the seat would meet the force/deflection corridor. c. Request for Comments • We note that in the above quasi-static procedure, no load is applied through the pelvis body block. This is because a visual assessment showed the desired seat response could be achieved with just the torso body block load. Also, a main focus of the test is to assure that the top of the seat back does not pull too far forward and jeopardize the protection of compartmentalized passengers to the rear of the belted occupants. The agency seeks comment on whether the quasi-static test should apply a pelvis block loading. • The agency also seeks comment on the proposal to have a more rigorous quasi-static seat test for small school buses than for large school buses. We also seek comment on the appropriate level of the torso block loading to be applied during the test and allowable anchorage displacement. Would it be appropriate and reasonable to impose the same displacement limit as is being proposed for large school buses? • Comments are requested on the validity of the assumption that the timing of the seat loading is such that the seat belt loading will essentially be finished before the upper part of the seat back is loaded by the rear compartmentalized dummy. • The agency also seeks comment on the proposed procedure (see S5.1.6.5.4 of the proposed rule) for positioning the torso block. Is the proposed procedure sufficiently clear? Are there ways to improve the clarity of the test procedure? VIII. Lead Time If the proposed changes in this NPRM are made final, NHTSA proposes a one year lead time for school bus manufacturers to meet the new minimum seat back height (24 inches), seat cushion test and barrier requirements for all school buses, since there is limited or no development necessary for these changes. We note that lap/shoulder belts are currently available from two suppliers. We are aware of at least one school bus manufacturer (Collins) that is already manufacturing its own lap/shoulder belt seats. We further propose a one year lead time for meeting requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts in large school buses and a three year lead time for meeting mandatory installation in small school buses. We believe three years are necessary for small school buses since some design, testing, and development will be necessary to certify compliance to the new requirements. Nothing in this NPRM proposes to require that large school buses be fitted with seat belt anchorages, with lap belts, or lap/shoulder belts. If the proposed changes in this NPRM are made final, NHTSA proposes that optional early compliance be permitted. IX. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866 and is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA has prepared a preliminary regulatory evaluation
(PRE)for this NPRM. 39 39 NHTSA's preliminary regulatory evaluation
(PRE)discusses issues relating to the potential costs, benefits and other impacts of this regulatory action. The PRE is available in the docket for this NPRM and may be obtained by contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this document. This NPRM proposes:
(a)For all school buses, to increase seat back height from 20 inches to 24 inches, and to require a self-latching mechanism for seat bottom cushions that are designed to flip-up 40 ; and
(b)for small school buses (GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, require lap/shoulder belts instead of just lap belts. The belt systems would be required to meet specifications for retractors, strength, location and adjustability. Seat backs with lap/shoulder belts would be subject to a quasi-static test so that the seat backs are strong enough to withstand the forces from a belted passenger and force imposed on the seat from unbelted passenger seated behind rear the belted occupant. This NPRM also proposes:
(c)Performance requirements for voluntarily-installed seat belts on large (over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) school buses. For large school buses with voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder belts, the vehicle would be subject to the requirements described above for lap/shoulder belts on small school buses, except that applied test forces and performance limits would be adjusted so as to be representative of those imposed on large school buses. Large school buses with voluntarily-installed lap belts would be required to meet anchorage strength requirements. This NPRM does not require seat belts to be installed on large school buses. The proposed performance requirements for seat belts on large school buses affect large school buses only if purchasers choose to order seat belts on their vehicles. 40 The agency estimates that a self-latching mechanism on flip-up seat bottoms would cost less than $3 per seat, or $66 per bus. This cost was not included in the estimates given below. Comments are requested on the number of school buses and school bus seats affected by the seat latching requirement. *School Bus Fleet 2007 Fact Book* on U.S. school bus sales for the sales years 2001-2005 reports that for each of these years on average, approximately 40,000 school buses were sold. NHTSA estimates that of the 40,000 school buses sold per year, 2,500 of them were 10,000 pounds GVWR or under. The other 37,500 school buses were over 10,000 pounds GVWR. Four states currently require high back seats (Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio). These states have 21.7 percent of the sales. Thus, the high back seat incremental costs apply to 78.3 percent of these sales or 1,958 buses that are 10,000 pounds GVWR or under and 29,362 buses that are over 10,000 pounds GVWR. Small School Buses NHTSA estimates that the costs of this rulemaking would be the incremental cost of the higher (24 inch) seat back ($45 to $64 per small school bus for 78.3 percent of the fleet) plus the incremental cost for lap/shoulder belts over lap belts of $1,121 to $2,417. This would be a total incremental cost per school bus of $1,166 to $2,481 per bus for those states without high back seats. If it is assumed that in a given year, 2,500 small school buses are sold, for all small school buses, the total incremental costs of this rulemaking are estimated to be from $2,889,000 ($45 × 1,958 + $1,121 × 2,500 small school buses) to $6,167,000 ($64 × 1,958 + $2,417 × 2,500 small school buses). The estimated benefits resulting from the higher seat backs and lap/shoulder belts on small school buses is, per year, 37.2 fewer injuries, and 0.4 fewer fatalities. Large School Buses *Costs of Higher Seat Backs on Large School Buses* —If this NPRM were made final, all large school buses would be required to have the higher seat backs of 24 inches. NHTSA estimates the cost per large school bus of the higher seat back to be $125. If this NPRM were made final, NHTSA estimates that the total costs of the higher seat backs on large school buses to be $3,680,000 (29,362 large school buses times $125.40). *Benefits of Higher Seat Backs on Large School Buses* —If this NPRM were made final, the benefits from higher seat backs on large should buses is estimated to be 29.6 fewer injuries per year, and 0.2 fewer fatalities per year. *Costs and Benefits of Performance Requirements for Voluntarily-Installed Belts on Large School Buses* —As earlier noted, nothing in this rulemaking would require any party to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Instead, this rulemaking would specify performance requirements that voluntarily-installed lap or lap/shoulder belts at passenger seating positions must meet. Lap or lap/shoulder belts that are now installed in large school buses would be affected by this rulemaking, in that the voluntarily-installed belt systems would be subject to the performance requirements set forth in this NPRM whereas currently the systems are not subject to any Federal standard. The agency is unable to estimate the costs and benefits of this part because not enough is known about the requirements that state and local authorities now specify for the performance of seat belt systems on large school buses. Comments are requested on the added costs that would result from the belt systems having to meet the performance requirements specified in this NPRM. Overview of Costs and Benefits Costs of High Back Seats and Lap/Shoulder Belts for Small School Buses, and of High Back Seats for Large School Buses Small School Buses: Adding together the high back seat incremental cost of $45 to $64 to the incremental cost for lap/shoulder belts over lap belts of $1,121 to $2,417, results in a total incremental cost of $1,166 to $2,481 per bus. Large School Buses: The incremental cost for high back seat is estimated to be $125 per bus. Table 1.—Total Costs (per bus and for the Fleet) [$2006] Large buses Small buses Small buses 66 passenger 14 Passenger 20 Passenger. Per Bus Costs $125 $1,166 $2,481. Annual Fleet Costs $3.7 million $2.9 million $6.2 million. Combined Annual Fleet Costs $6.6 to $9.9 Million Benefits of High Back Seats and Lap/Shoulder Belts for Small School Buses, and of High Back Seats for Large School Buses The benefits of the proposal for small school buses and large school buses are estimated as shown below in Table 2: Table 2.—Total Benefits Small school bus Injuries Fatalities Large school bus Injuries Fatalities Total Injuries Fatalities High Back Seat Combined below 1 30 0.2 30 0.2 Lap/Shoulder Belts 37 0.4 n.a. n.a. 37 0.4 Total 37 0.4 30 0.2 67 0.6 1 We did not have test data to allow us to separate out the high back seats from lap/shoulder belts for small school buses; thus, these data have been combined. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 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 governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR § 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR Section 121.201, the Small Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define small business concerns, school bus manufacturers would fall under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) No. 336111, *Automobile Manufacturing,* which has a size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. Using the size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer, NHTSA estimates that there are two small school bus manufacturers in the United States (U.S. Bus Corp. and Van-Con). NHTSA believes that both U.S. Bus Corp and Van-Con manufacture small school buses and large school buses. I hereby certify that if made final, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If this NPRM were made final, the small businesses manufacturing small buses would incur incremental costs ranging from a low of $1,166 to $2,481 per small school bus, out of a total cost of $40,000 to $50,000 per small school bus. The small businesses manufacturing large school buses would incur incremental costs of $125 per school bus (out of a total of more than $70,000) for the costs of the higher seat backs. The costs of lap/shoulder belts on large school buses is not a factor, as nothing in this NPRM would require lap/shoulder belts or lap belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. The relatively minimal additional costs outlined above for large and small school buses would be passed on to school bus purchasers. Those purchasers are required to be sold school buses if they purchase a new bus, and to use school buses. Thus, small school bus manufacturers would not lose market share if the changes proposed in this NPRM were made final. While small organizations and governmental jurisdictions procuring school buses would be affected by this rulemaking in that the cost of school buses would increase, the agency believes the impacts on these entities would not be significant. Executive Order 13132 NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). On July 11, 2007, NHTSA held a public meeting bringing together a roundtable of state and local government policymakers, school bus manufacturers, pupil transportation associations and consumer groups to discuss the safety, policy and economic issues related to seat belts on school buses (see NHTSA Docket 28103). No additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is contemplated beyond the rulemaking process. Further, the agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have federalism implications because it would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposal would specify performance requirements for seat belts voluntarily installed on large school buses, but does not propose to require the belts on the large buses. Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive provision: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be inappropriate. In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted. See id. at 883-86. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This NPRM would not establish any new information collection requirements. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” After carefully reviewing the available information, NHTSA has determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to this rulemaking. Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1)Clearly specifies the preemptive effect;
(2)clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation;
(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4)clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any;
(5)adequately defines key terms; and
(7)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This NPRM would not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking that:
(1)Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or
(2)that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs? • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal. Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. Privacy Act Anyone is able to 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). X. Public Participation How do I prepare and submit comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.* DOT's guidelines may be accessed at MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.* How can I be sure that my comments were received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How do I submit confidential business information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.) Will the agency consider late comments? We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How can I read the comments submitted by other people? You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. Appendix A to the Preamble—Proposed Amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards For the convenience of the reader and for illustration purposes, this appendix generally lists the proposed amendments according to the affected standard. This NPRM proposes to: a. Amend 207, *Seating Systems,* to apply it to school buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less (“small school buses”). b. Amend FMVSS No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection,* to: 1. Require lap/shoulder belt at all passenger-seating positions on small school buses. 2. Correct a typographical error in the heading of S4.4.5. 3. Specify lockability requirements for seat belts on school buses. c. Amend FMVSS No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,* to: 1. Specify a seat belt anchorage strength test of 3,000 pounds each for the torso and the lap portion of voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder belt anchorages for passengers in large school buses. 2. Specify a seat belt anchorage strength test of 5,000 pounds for voluntarily-installed lap belt anchorages in large school buses. 3. Add a requirement concerning lap/shoulder anchorage locations and adjustability so seat belts on school buses properly fit passengers from sizes ranging from an average 6-year-old through a 50th percentile adult male. 4. Add a requirement that the seat belts be anchored to the school bus seat structure. d. Amend FMVSS No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* to: 1. Increase seat back height from 20 inches to 24 inches above the seating reference point, and amend frontal restraining barrier requirements to make them consistent with the higher seat back heights. 2. Require lap/shoulder belt restraints instead of the current lap belts for small school buses. 3. Require voluntarily-installed lap belts and lap/shoulder belt systems in large school buses to meet performance requirements. 4. Add a quasi-static test for all passenger seats with lap/shoulder belts, to ensure compatibility between compartmentalization and lap/shoulder belt systems. 5. Specify a minimum seat belt width of 15 inches for all passenger school bus seats with lap/shoulder belts. 6. Require all seat bottom cushions that are designed to flip-up to have a self-latching mechanism. It is noted that this list does not include FMVSS No. 209, because that standard already applies to seat belt assemblies for use in buses, a vehicle class that includes—by definition—school buses. (See “school bus” definition in 49 CFR 571.3.) List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 571 as set forth below. PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1.The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 571.207 is amended by revising the introductory text of S4.2, to read as follows: § 571.207 Standard No. 207; Seating systems. S4.2. *General performance requirements.* When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat shall withstand the following forces, in newtons, except for a side-facing seat, a passenger seat on a bus other than a school bus, a passenger seat on a school bus with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), and a passenger seat on a school bus with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg manufactured before [ *insert compliance date of the final rule* ]. 3. Section 571.208 is amended by revising S4.4.3.3, adding S7.1.5, and revising the heading of S4.4.5 and S4.4.5.1, to read as follows: § 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection. S4.4.3.3 *School buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less.*
(a)Each school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less manufactured before [ *compliance date to be inserted* ] must be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position and at the right front passenger's designated seating position (if any), and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions. Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed in compliance with this requirement must comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. The lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at the driver's designated seating position and at the right front passenger's designated seating position (if any) must meet the requirements specified in S4.4.3.3(c).
(b)Each school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less manufactured on or after [ *compliance date to be inserted* ] must be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at all designated seating positions. The seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position and at the right front passenger's designated seating position (if any) shall comply with Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. The lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at the driver's designated seating position and at the right front passenger's designated seating position (if any) shall meet the requirements specified in S4.4.3.3(c). Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed on the rear seats of school buses must meet the requirements of S7.1.1.5, S7.1.5 and S7.2 of this standard.
(c)The lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at the driver's designated seating position and at the right front passenger's designated seating position (if any) shall include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor, which retractor shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor. In determining whether an automatic locking retractor complies with this requirement, the webbing is extended to 75 percent of its length and the retractor is locked after the initial adjustment. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed in compliance with this requirement incorporates any webbing tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall include the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this standard for the tension-relieving device, and the vehicle shall comply with S7.4.2(c) of this standard. S4.4.5 *Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) or less, except school buses, manufactured on or after September 1, 2007.* S4.4.5.1 Except as provided in S4.4.5.2, S4.4.5.3, S4.4.5.4, S4.4.5.5 and S4.4.5.6, each bus as with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) or less, except school buses, shall be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at every designated seating position other than a side-facing position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies installed in compliance with this requirement shall conform to Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. If a Type 2 seat belt assembly installed in compliance with this requirement incorporates a webbing tension relieving device, the vehicle owner's manual shall include the information specified in S7.3.1(b) of this standard for the tension relieving device, and the vehicle shall conform to S7.4.2(c) of this standard. Side-facing designated seating positions shall be equipped, at the manufacturer's option, with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly. S7.1.5 The seat belt assembly will operate by means of any emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to 49 CFR 571.209 to restrain persons whose dimensions range from those of an average 6-year-old child to those of a 50th percentile adult male. The seat back may be in any position. 4. Section 571.210 is amended by revising S2, amending S3 by adding definitions for “school bus torso belt adjusted height” and “school bus torso belt anchor point,” in alphabetical order, adding S4.1.3, and S4.1.3.1 through S4.1.3.5, and adding Figure 4 to the end of the section to read as follows: § 571.210 Standard No. 210; Seat belt assembly anchorages. S2. *Application* . This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and school buses. S3. Definitions. *School bus torso belt adjusted height* means the point at which the torso belt deviates more than 10 degrees from the horizontal plane when the torso belt is pulled away from the seat by a 20 N force at a location on the webbing approximately 100 mm from the adjustment device and the pulled portion of the webbing is held in a horizontal plane. *School bus torso belt anchor point* means the midpoint of the torso belt width where the torso belt first contacts the torso belt anchorage. S4.1.3 *School bus passenger seats* . S4.1.3.1 Seat belt anchorages on school buses manufactured on or after [ *insert compliance date of the final rule* ] must be attached to the school bus seat structure and the seat belt shall be Type 1 or Type 2 as defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209). S4.1.3.2 Type 2 seat belt anchorages on school buses manufactured on or after [ *insert compliance date of the final rule* ] must meet the location requirements specified in Figure 4. The vertical height of the school bus torso belt anchor point must be at least 520 mm above the seating reference point. The school bus torso belt adjusted height must be adjustable from the torso belt anchor point to within at least 280 mm of the seating reference point. S4.1.3.3 School buses with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) must meet the requirements of S4.1.1 of this standard. S4.1.3.4 School buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) manufactured on or after [ *insert compliance date of the final rule* ], with Type 1 seat belt anchorages, must meet the strength requirements specified in S4.2.1 of this standard. S4.1.3.5 School buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) manufactured on or after [ *insert compliance date of the final rule* ], with Type 2 seat belt anchorages, must meet the strength requirements specified in S4.2.2 of this standard. EP21NO07.003 BILLING CODE 4910-59-C 5. Section 571.222 is amended by: a. Adding to S4, in alphabetical order, a definition of “seat bench width” b. Revising S4.1, paragraphs S5(a) and (b), and paragraph S5.1.2; c. Redesignating S5.1.5 as S5.1.5(a) and adding paragraph S5.1.5(b); d. Adding S5.1.6 and S5.1.7; and revising S5.2.2; and, e. Adding Figure 8 following Figure 7 at the end of the section. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 571.222 Standard No. 222; School bus passenger seating and crash protection. S4. *Definitions.* *Seat bench width* means the maximum transverse width of the bench seat cushion. S4.1 *Determination of the number of seating positions and seat belt positions*
(a)The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat for vehicles manufactured before [ *insert compliance date here* ] is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the seat bench width in millimeters divided by 381 and rounded to the nearest whole number.
(b)The number of seating positions and the number of Type 1 seat belt positions considered to be in a bench seat for vehicles manufactured on or after [ *insert compliance date here* ] is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the seat bench width in millimeters divided by 380 and rounded to the nearest whole number.
(c)The number of seat belt positions in a bench seat equipped with Type 2 seat belts for vehicles manufactured on or after [ *insert compliance date here* ] is expressed by the symbol Y, and calculated as the seat bench width in millimeters divided by 380 and rounded to the next lowest whole number. The minimum seat bench width for a seat equipped with a Type 2 belt is 380 mm. S5. *Requirements.*
(a)*Large school buses.*
(1)Each school bus manufactured before [insert compliance date] with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading when tested under the conditions of S6. However, a particular school bus passenger seat (i.e., a test specimen) in that weight class need not meet further requirements after having met S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or having been subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, or S5.3.
(2)Each school bus manufactured on or after [insert compliance date] with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading when tested under the conditions of S6 of this standard or § 571.210. However, a particular school bus passenger seat (i.e., a test specimen) in that weight class need not meet further requirements after having met S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or having been subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.6 (if applicable), or S5.3. Each vehicle with voluntarily installed Type 1 seat belts and seat belt anchorages at W seating positions in a bench seat or Type 2 seat belts and seat belt anchorages at Y seat belt positions in a bench seat shall also meet the requirements of:
(i)4.4.3.3 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208);
(ii)Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), as they apply to school buses; and
(iii)Standard No. 210 (49 CFR § 571.210) as it applies to school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds.
(b)*Small school buses* . Each vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less shall be capable of meeting the following requirements at all rear seating positions: (1)(i) In the case of vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991, the requirements of §§ 571.208, 571.209, and 571.210 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles;
(ii)In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, the requirements of S4.4.3.3 of § 571.208 and the requirements of §§ 571.209 and 571.210 as they apply to school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less;
(iii)In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after [ *insert compliance date of the final rule* ] the requirements of S4.4.3.3(b) of § 571.208 and the requirements of §§ 571.209 and 571.210 as they apply to school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less; and
(2)The requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, S5.1.6, S5.3, and S5.4 of this standard. However, the requirements of §§ 571.208 and 571.210 shall be met at Y seat belt positions in a bench seat, and a particular school bus passenger seat (i.e. a test specimen) in that weight class need not meet further requirements after having met S5.1.2 and S5.1.5, or after having been subjected to either S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.6, or S5.3 of this standard or § 571.210 or § 571.225. S5.1.2 *Seat back height, position, and surface area* .
(a)For school buses manufactured before [ *compliance date to be inserted* ], each school bus passenger seat must be equipped with a seat back that has a vertical height of at least 508 mm (20 inches) above the seating reference point. Each school bus passenger seat must be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 508 mm (20 inches) above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 508.
(b)For school buses manufactured on or after [ *compliance date to be inserted* ], each school bus passenger seat must be equipped with a seat back that has a vertical height of at least 610 mm (24 inches) above the seating reference point. The minimum total width of the seat back at 610 mm (24 inches) above the seating reference point shall be 75 percent of the maximum width of the seat bench. Each school bus passenger seat must be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 610 mm (24 inches) above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 610. S5.1.5 *Seat cushion retention* .
(b)For school buses manufactured on or after [ *compliance date to be inserted* ], school bus passenger seat cushions equipped with attachment devices that allow for the seat cushion to be removable without tools or to flip up must have a self-latching mechanism that is activated when a 22 kg (48.4 pound) mass is placed on the center of the seat cushion with the seat cushion in the down position. S5.1.6 Quasi-static test of compartmentalization and Type 2 seat belt performance. S5.1.6.1 This section applies to rear passenger seats on school buses manufactured on or after [ *compliance date to be inserted* ] with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), and that are equipped with Type 2 seat belt assemblies. When tested under the conditions of S5.1.6.5.1 through S5.1.6.5.6, the school bus torso belt anchor point must not displace horizontally forward more than the value in millimeters calculated from the following expression: (AH + 100) (tanΦ + 0.174/cosΦ) mm where AH is the height in millimeters of the school bus torso belt anchor point defined by S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210) and Φ is the angle of the posterior surface of the seat back defined in S5.1.6.3 of this standard. S5.1.6.2 This section applies to rear passenger seats on school buses manufactured on or after [ *compliance date to be inserted* ] with a gross vehicle weight rating less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), equipped with Type 2 seat belt assemblies. When tested under the conditions of S5.1.6.5.1 through 5.1.6.5.6, the school bus torso belt anchor point must not displace horizontally forward more than the value in millimeters calculated from the following expression: (AH + 100) (tanΦ + 0.259/cosΦ) mm where AH is the height in millimeters of the school bus torso belt anchor point defined by S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210) and Φ is the angle of the posterior surface of the seat back defined in S5.1.6.3 of this standard. S5.1.6.3 *Angle of the posterior surface of a seat back* . Position the loading bar specified in S6.5 of this standard so that it is laterally centered behind the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle in a horizontal plane within ± 6 mm (0.25 inches) of the horizontal plane passing through the seating reference point and move the bar forward against the seat back until a force of 44 N (10 pounds) has been applied. Position a second loading bar as described in S6.5 of this standard so that it is laterally centered behind the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in the horizontal plane 406 ± 6 mm (16 ± 0.25 inches) above the seating reference point, and move the bar forward against the seat back until a force of 44 N (10 pounds) has been applied. Determine the angle from vertical of a line in the longitudinal vehicle plane that passes through the geometric center of the cross-section of each cylinder, as shown in Figure 8. That angle is the angle of the posterior surface of the seat back. S5.1.6.4 The seat back must absorb 452W joules of energy when subjected to the force specified in S5.1.6.5.7. S5.1.6.5 *Quasi-static test procedure* . S5.1.6.5.1 If the seat back inclination is adjustable, the seat back is placed in the manufacturer's normal design riding position. If such a position is not specified, the seat back is positioned so it is in the most upright position. S5.1.6.5.2 Position the lower loading bar specified in S6.5 of this standard so that it is laterally centered behind the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in any horizontal plane between 102 mm (4 inches) above and 102 mm (4 inches) below the seating reference point of the school bus passenger seat behind the test specimen. Position the upper loading bar described in S6.5 so that it is laterally centered behind the seat back with the bar's longitudinal axis in a transverse plane of the vehicle and in the horizontal plane 406 mm (16 inches) above the seating reference point of the school bus passenger seat behind the test specimen. S5.1.6.5.3 Apply a force of 3,114W N (700W pounds) horizontally in the forward direction through the lower loading bar specified at S6.5 at the pivot attachment point. Reach the specified load in not less than 5 and not more than 30 seconds. No sooner than 1.0 second after attaining the required force, reduce that force to 1,557W N (350W pounds) and maintain the pivot point position of the loading bar at the position where the 1,557W N (350W pounds) is attained until the completion of S5.1.6.5.5 and S5.1.6.5.6 of this standard. S5.1.6.5.4 Position the body block specified in Figure 3 of FMVSS No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210) under each torso belt (between the torso belt and the seat back) in the passenger seat and apply a preload force of 300 N (67 pounds) on each body block in a forward direction parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle pursuant to the specifications of FMVSS No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210). After preload application is complete, the origin of the 203 mm body block radius at any point across the 102 mm body block thickness shall lie within the zone defined by S5.1.6.5.3(a) through S5.1.6.5.3(c):
(a)At or rearward of a transverse vertical plane of the vehicle located 100 mm forward of the seating reference point.
(b)At or above a horizontal plane located 195 mm above the seating reference point.
(c)At or below a horizontal plane located 345 mm above the seating reference point.
(d)Determination of the seating reference point is provided by the manufacturer; alternatively, if the seating reference point is not provided by the manufacturer, NHTSA will make its own determination as to the seating reference point. S5.1.6.5.5
(a)For school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, simultaneously apply the following force to each body block:
(1)If ((seat bench width in mm) − (380Y)) is 25 mm (1 inch) or less, apply 5,000 N (1,124 pounds); or
(2)If ((seat bench width in mm) − (380Y)) is greater than 25 mm (1 inch), apply 7,500 N (1,686 pounds).
(b)For school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) simultaneously apply the following force to each body block:
(1)If ((seat bench width in mm) − (380Y)) is 25 mm (1 inch) or less, apply 3,300 N (742 pounds); or
(2)If ((seat bench width in mm) − (380Y)) is greater than 25 mm (1 inch), apply 5,000 N (1,124 pounds). S5.1.6.5.6 Reach the specified load in not less than 5 and not more than 30 seconds. Measure the torso belt anchor point horizontal displacement and then remove the body block. S5.1.6.5.7 Apply an additional force horizontally in the forward direction through the upper bar until 452W joules of energy have been absorbed in deflecting the seat back. The maximum travel of the pivot attachment point for the upper loading bar shall not exceed 356 mm as measured from the position at which the initial application of 44 N of force is attained. Apply the additional load in not less than 5 seconds and not more than 30 seconds. Maintain the pivot attachment point at the maximum forward travel position for not less than 5 seconds, and not more than 10 seconds and release the load in not less than 5 seconds and not more than 30 seconds. (For the determination of S5.1.6.5.7, the energy calculation describes only the force applied through the upper loading bar, and the forward and rearward travel distance of the upper loading bar pivot attachment point measured from the position at which the initial application of 44 N of force is attained.) If energy absorption of 452W joules cannot be obtained by the seat back, the test procedure is terminated and the seat back is determined to have failed to meet S5.1.6.4. S5.1.7 *Minimum seat width* . For school buses manufactured on or after [ *compliance date to be inserted* ], each passenger seating position with a Type 2 restraint system shall have a minimum seating width and seat belt anchor width of 380 mm (15 inches). S5.2.2 *Barrier height, position, and rear surface area* . The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the minimum seat back area required by S5.1.2 for the seat immediately rearward of the restraining barrier. EP21NO07.004 Issued on: November 15, 2007. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 07-5758 Filed 11-19-07; 10:00 am]
Connectionstraces to 93
Traces to 93 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
77 references not yet in our index
  • 12 CFR 701
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 42 USC 3601-3610
  • 42 USC 4311-4312
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 77
  • 14 CFR 1245
  • 42 USC 2473
  • 42 USC 2457
  • 27 CFR 24
  • Pub. L. 104-188
  • Pub. L. 101-508
  • 104 Stat. 1388
  • 110 Stat. 1755
  • Pub. L. 105-34
  • 111 Stat. 788
  • 27 CFR 70
  • 27 CFR 45
  • 28 CFR 0
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 41 USC 601-613
  • Pub. L. 109-163
  • 31 USC 3720D
  • 5 CFR 550
  • 44 USC 3501-3521
  • 38 CFR 1
  • 38 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 52
  • 40 CFR 51
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 50 CFR 600
  • 10 CFR 50
+ 37 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
C.F.R.§ 701.21
C.F.R.§ 701.23
U.S.C.§ 1757
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 3502
Pub. L.Public Law 118-137
U.S.C.§ 551
U.S.C.§ 1752
U.S.C.§ 3717
F. App'x731 F.2d 25
F. Supp.35 F. Supp. 892
SCOTUS529 U.S. 861
Cites 170 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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