Unknown. Final rule

46,790 words·~213 min read·/register/2008/05/02/08-1206

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-2008-05-02.xml --- 73 86 Friday, May 2, 2008 Contents Agency Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry NOTICES Availability of the Draft Report: “Selected Information on Chemical Releases within Great Lakes Counties, etc.”, 24290-24291 E8-9742 Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24211-24212 E8-9650 E8-9652 United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples;

Correction, 24212-24213 E8-9649 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Food and Nutrition Service See Forest Service Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24255-24256 E8-9628 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Environmental Assessment; Availability: Field Testing Mannheimia Haemolytica-Pasteurella Multocida Vaccine, Avirulent Live Culture, 24213-24214 E8-9636 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24256-24258 E8-9620 E8-9621 E8-9625 E8-9626 E8-9630 Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panels, 24291-24292 E8-9347 E8-9515 E8-9666 E8-9671 E8-9711 E8-9736 National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 24292-24293 E8-9668 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24293-24294 E8-9503 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Delegation of Authority, 24294-24295 E8-9634 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List: Additions and Deletions, 24217-24218 E8-9684 Additions and Deletions;

Correction, 24217 E8-9685 Prosposed Additions, 24218-24219 E8-9683 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24253-24255 E8-9624 E8-9713 E8-9715 E8-9718 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Application: Abbott Laboratories, 24313 E8-9696 Notice of Application: Manufacturer of Controlled Substances, 24313-24314 E8-9694 Registration:

Importer of Controlled Substances, 24314-24315 E8-9697 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24260-24261 E8-9641 Centers for Independent Living, 24261-24265 E8-9786 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance; Roundtable, 24265 E8-9651 Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), As Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 24266-24272 E8-9708 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Amended Certification Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, etc.:

Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Granger, IN, 24318-24319 E8-9660 Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Troy, OH, 24316 E8-9661 Panasonic Shikoku Electronics Corporation of America et al., 24316 E8-9662 Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, 24316-24318 E8-9659 Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, 24319-24320 E8-9658 Termination of Investigation:

Tenneco; Formerly Tenneco, Inc., Milan, OH, 24320 E8-9657 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, 24272-24273 E8-9676 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Seven Oaks Dam; Woolly Star Preserve Area, San Bernardino County, CA, 24258-24259 E8-9488 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans:

West Virginia: Transportation Conformity Requirement, 24175-24178 E8-9608 Denial of Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Stay: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the “Major Emitting Facility” Definition, 24174-24175 E8-9749 PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: West Virginia; Transportation Conformity Requirements, 24187 E8-9611 Proposed Clarification for Chemical Identification Describing Activated Phosphors for TSCA Inventory Purposes;

Reopening of Comment Period, 24187-24188 E8-9740 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 24279-24281 E8-9709 E8-9744 Meetings: Draft Toxicological Review of Propionaldehyde; In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System, 24281-24282 E8-9734 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Request for Critical Use Exemption Applications (Years 2010 and 2011), 24282-24285 E8-9743 Science Advisory Board Staff Office Request for Nominations to Augment Expertise on the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, 24285-24286 E8-9738 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives:

Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes, 24160-24162 E8-9441 Boeing Model 737 100, 200, 200C, 300, 400, and 500 Series Airplanes, 24151-24153 E8-9312 Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes, 24164-24168 E8-9316 Boeing Model 737 600, 700, 700C, 800 and 900 Series Airplanes, 24149-24151 E8-9310 Boeing Model 777-200, 300, and 300ER Series Airplanes, 24153-24155 E8-9113 Bombardier Model CL 600 2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes, 24147-24149 E8-9196 Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), etc., 24145-24147 E8-9570 Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, et al., 24157-24160 E8-9567 Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC 8 402 Airplanes, 24143-24145 E8-9571 Cessna Aircraft Company 172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210, and 303 Series Airplanes, 24168-24171 E8-9719 De Havilland Support Limited Model Beagle B.121 Series 1, 2, and 3 Airplanes, 24141-24143 E8-9588 McDonnell Douglas Model DC 10 10, DC 10 10F, DC 10 15, and MD 10 10F Airplanes, 24155-24157 E8-9439 Taylorcraft, Inc.

Models A, B, and F series Airplanes, 24162-24164 E8-9397 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Micellaneous Amendments, 24171-24173 E8-9288 NOTICES Surplus Property Release at Mobile Downtown Airport, Mobile, AL, 24346 E8-9617 Use of Aeronautical Property: Portland International Jetport, Portland, ME, 24346 E8-9619 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Amendment of Various Rules Affecting Wireless Services, 24180-24184 E8-9752 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;

Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24286-24287 E8-9727 Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings: Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, 24287-24289 E8-9731 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24289 E8-9622 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 24178-24180 E8-9691 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Notice of Filings, 24273-24276 E8-9663 Compliance Filing:

Worsham-Steed Gas Storage, L.P, 24276 E8-9773 Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC, et al., 24276-24279 E8-9774 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24346-24347 E8-9690 Federal Register Federal Register, Administrative Committee See Federal Register Office Federal Register Federal Register Office NOTICES Announcement of withdrawal and republication; correction, 24496 08-1216 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 24289 E8-9670 Change in Bank Control Notices, Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 24289 E8-9643 Formations, Acquisitions, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 24290 E8-9642 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Cullinan Ranch Unit Restoration Project, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Solano County, CA, 24302-24303 E8-9675 Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications, 24303-24304 E8-9672 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension;

TEKTURNA, 24295 E8-9699 Food Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24214-24215 E8-9702 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Foreign-Trade Zone 76 Bridgeport, CT, Request for Manufacturing Authority, Derecktor Shipyards Conn, LLC (Cruise Ships, Ferries, and Yachts), 24219 E8-9716 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: Crooked Creek Reservoir Repair;

White River National Forest, Eagle County, CO, 24215-24216 E8-9581 Inspections Conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers on Formerly Used Defense Sites, 24216 E8-9730 New Fee for Snow Peak Shelter, 24216-24217 E8-9582 Health Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Federal Emergency Management Agency Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 24302 E8-9388 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

Proposed Absaloka Mine Crow Reservation South Extension Coal Lease Approval, etc.; Big Horn County, MT, 24304-24305 E8-9703 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Guidance Regarding Foreign Base Company Sales Income; Correction, 24186 E8-9646 Hearing: Hybrid Retirement Plans, 24186 E8-9647 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Certain Lined Paper Products from India:

Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 24219-24220 E8-9722 Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 24220 E8-9725 Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 24220-24222 E8-9729 Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Review, 24222-24223 E8-9710 Meetings:

Exporters’ Textile Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting Postponement, 24223 E8-9723 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping Duty Review: Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from China, 24310-24312 E8-9664 Determination: Certain Steel Threaded Rod From China, 24312 E8-9704 Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, 24312-24313 E8-9665 Justice Justice Department See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Lodging of Consent Decree:

McCulloch Corporation, et al., 24313 E8-9677 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24315-24316 E8-9673 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Realty Action: Proposed Modified Competitive Sale of Public Land, Conejos County and Competitive Sale of Public Land. Rio Grande County, CO, 24305-24306 E8-9554 Record of Decision: Special Status Species Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment, 24306-24307 E8-9605 Temporary Closure of Public Lands During Competitive Special Recreation Permitted:

Events on Public Lands Managed by the Carson City Field Office, Nevada, 24307-24308 E8-9674 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws, 24347-24349 E8-9678 E8-9680 E8-9686 E8-9689 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24308-24309 E8-9688 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See Federal Register Office National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Average Fuel Economy Standards:

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 24352-24487 08-1186 Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy Standards: Model Years 2008-2020 and Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards — Model Years 2008-2020; Request for Product Plan Information, 24190-24210 08-1185 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24349-24350 E8-9648 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 24295-24298 E8-9559 E8-9561 E8-9562 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 24298 E8-9557 E8-9637 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 24299-24300 E8-9560 National Institute of Mental Health, 24299 E8-9558 National Institute of Nursing Research, 24299 E8-9556 National Institute on Aging, 24300 E8-9563 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;

Pacific Ocean Perch by Vessels in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Trawl Limited Access Fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Al, 24184-24185 08-1206 NOTICES Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals During Specified Activities: Marine Geophysical Surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 24223-24235 E8-9717 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 24235 E8-9655 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 24235-24236 E8-9654 E8-9656 Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;

Ocean Bottom Cable Seismic Survey in the Liberty Prospect, Beaufort Sea, AK, 24236-24253 E8-9682 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24320-24321 E8-9653 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972), 24173-24174 E8-9669 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24259-24260 E8-9623 E8-9712 E8-9714 Environmental Statements;

Availability, Etc.: Proposed Homeporting of Additional Surface Ships at Naval Station Mayport, FL, 24260 E8-9707 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Receipt and Availability of Application for a Combined License: Constellation Generation Group, LLC. and Unistar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC., 24321 E8-9745 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24321-24323 E8-9733 E8-9741 Presidential Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Burma;

Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions (EO 13464), 24489-24493 08-1215 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24323 E8-9692 Application: ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, et al., 24324-24327 E8-9632 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24327 E8-9644 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 24327-24329 E8-9695 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 24329-24332 E8-9645 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 24332-24338 E8-9631 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 24338-24339 E8-9693 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declaration:

Arkansas, 24339-24340 E8-9629 E8-9633 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24340-24342 E8-9700 State State Department NOTICES Overseas Citizens Services Records, 24342-24345 E8-9737 Public Hearings on Proposed New Order of Approval and Plan 2007 for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, 24345-24346 E8-9701 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Current List of Laboratories which Meet Minimum Standards to Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 24300-24301 E8-9746 Toxic Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Agency See Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Maritime Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Implementation of OMB Guidance on Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment, 24139-24141 E8-8788 PROPOSED RULES Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments:

Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations, 24188-24190 E8-8789 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 24352-24487 08-1186 Part III Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 24489-24493 08-1215 Part IV Federal Register Office, 24496 08-1216 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. 73 86 Friday, May 2, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 2 CFR Part 1200 49 CFR Part 29 RIN 2105-AD68 Department of Transportation Implementation of OMB Guidance on Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (Department) is moving its regulations on nonprocurement suspension and debarment from their current location in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)to title 2 of the CFR. By issuing this final rule and moving its nonprocurement suspension and debarment regulations to new CFR part 1200 in title 2 thereof, the Department is also adopting the interim and final government-wide guidance on nonprocurement suspension and debarment issued by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in the **Federal Register** on August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51863) and November 15, 2006 (71 FR 66431), respectively. The OMB guidance can be found in 2 CFR Part 180, Subtitle A, Chapter I. These actions by the Department implement OMB initiatives to streamline and consolidate all federal regulations on nonprocurement suspension and debarment into one part of the CFR. In addition, this rule removes 49 CFR Part 29, regulations that reflect the Department's implementation of the government-wide common rule on nonprocurement suspension and debarment. These changes are non-substantive in nature and constitute an administrative simplification that would make no substantive change in Department policy or procedures for nonprocurement suspension and debarment. DATES: This final rule is effective on June 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Shields, Office of the Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Administration (M-61),

(202)366-4268, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 11, 2004, OMB established title 2 of the CFR with two subtitles (69 FR 26275). Subtitle A, “Government-wide Grants and Agreements,” contains OMB policy guidance to Federal agencies on grants and agreements. Subtitle B, “Federal Agency Regulations for Grants and Agreements,” contains Federal agencies' regulations implementing the OMB guidance, as it applies to grants and other financial assistance agreements and nonprocurement transactions. On August 31, 2005, OMB published interim final guidance for government-wide nonprocurement suspension and debarment in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 51863). The guidance is located in title 2 of the CFR as new subtitle A, Chapter 1, part 180. The interim final guidance updated previous OMB guidance that was issued pursuant to Executive Order 12549, “Suspension and debarment” (February 18, 1986), which have government-wide effect on each agency's nonprocurement suspension and debarment actions. Section 6 of the Executive Order authorized OMB to issue guidance to Executive agencies on nonprocurement suspension and debarment, including provisions describing government-wide criteria and minimum due process. Section 3 directed Executive agencies to issue regulations implementing the Executive Order that are consistent with the OMB guidelines. On November 15, 2006, OMB published a final rule adopting the final guidance with changes (71 FR 66431). This final rule places DOT's nonprocurement suspension and debarment regulations in subtitle B of title 2 of the CFR, along with other agencies' nonprocurement suspension and debarment rules. The new 2 CFR part 1200 adopts the OMB guidelines with additions and clarifications that the Department made to the common rule on nonprocurement suspension and debarment in November 2003 (68 FR 66643) and October 2006 (71 FR 62394). DOT is not soliciting public comment on this rule and is instead issuing this rule as a final rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) agencies are not required to undergo notice and comment procedure for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” Because this rule adopts OMB's published guidelines, which followed notice and comment procedures, and colocates DOT's specific nonprocurement suspension and debarment rules to title 2 of the CFR, we believe that it falls under the exception cited above. In addition, the Department believes that there would not be meaningful public comment on this rule, which is purely administrative in nature. Executive Order 12866 The Department has determined that this rule is nonsignificant. It is purely administrative in nature and does not impose new burdens on any parties. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. That is because, as a purely administrative rule, it does not create economic effects on anyone. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 This regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year, as adjusted for inflation. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This regulatory action does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. List of Subjects 2 CFR Part 1200 Administrative practice and procedure, Suspension and debarment, Grant programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 49 CFR Part 29 Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Issued on April 14, 2008. Mary E. Peters, Secretary of Transportation. For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of Sec. 2455, Public Law 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); E.O. 11738 (3 CFR, 1973 Comp., p. 799); E.O. 12549 (3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235), the Department of Transportation amends Title 2, subtitle B and title 49, subtitle A, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: Title 2—Grants and Agreements 1. Add Chapter 12, consisting of part 1200 to Subtitle B to read as follows: Chapter 12—Department of Transportation PART 1200—NONPROCUREMENT SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT Sec. 1200.10 What does this part do? 1200.20 Does this part apply to me? 1200.30 What policies and procedures must I follow? Subpart A—General 1200.137 Who in the Department of Transportation may grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction? Subpart B—Covered Transactions 1200.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions? Subpart C—Responsibilities of Participants Regarding Transactions 1200.332 What methods must I use to pass requirements down to participants at lower tiers with whom I intend to do business? Subpart D—Responsibilities of Federal Agency Officials Regarding Transactions 1200.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435? Subparts E Through J—[Reserved] Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; Sec. 2455, Public Law 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); E.O. 12549 (3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 235). § 1200.10 What does this part do? This part adopts the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)guidance in Subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part, as the Department of Transportation policies and procedures for nonprocurement suspension and debarment. It thereby gives regulatory effect for the Department of Transportation to the OMB guidance as supplemented by this part. This part satisfies the requirements in section 3 of Executive Order 12549, “Supension and Debarment” (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189), Executive Order 12689, “Suspension and Debarment” (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235) and 31 U.S.C. 6101 note (Section 2455, Public Law 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327). § 1200.20 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in Subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 (see table at 2 CFR 180.100(b)) apply to you if you are a—

(a)Participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see Subpart B of 2 CFR part 180 and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” at 2 CFR 180.970;

(b)Respondent in a Department of Transportation suspension or debarment action;

(c)Department of Transportation debarment or suspension official;

(d)Department of Transportation grants officer, agreements officer, or other official authorized to enter into any type of nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction. § 1200.30 What policies and procedures must I follow? The Department of Transportation policies and procedures that you must follow are the policies and procedures specified in each applicable section of the OMB guidance in Subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as that section is supplemented by the section in this part with the same section number. The contracts that are covered transactions, for example, are specified by section 220 of the OMB guidance (i.e., 2 CFR 180.220), as supplemented by section 220 in this part (i.e., § 1200.220). For any section of OMB guidance in Subparts A through I of 2 CFR 180 that has no corresponding section in this part, Department of Transportation policies and procedures are those in the OMB guidance. Subpart A—General § 1200.137 Who in the Department of Transportation may grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction? Within the Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, the Secretary or an official designated by the Secretary may grant an exception permitting an excluded person to participate in a particular covered transaction. Within an Operating Administration of the Department of Transportation, the head of the operating administration may grant an exception permitting an excluded person to participate in a particular covered transaction. The head of an operating administration may delegate this function and authorize successive delegations. Subpart B—Covered Transactions § 1200.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions? In addition to the contracts covered under 2 CFR 180.220(b) of the OMB guidance, this part applies to any contract, regardless of tier, that is awarded by a contractor, subcontractor, supplier, consultant, or its agent or representative in any transaction, if the contract is to be funded or provided by the Department of Transportation under a covered nonprocurement transaction and the amount of the contract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. This extends the coverage of the Department of Transportation nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements to all lower tiers of subcontracts under covered nonprocurement transactions, as permitted under the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) (see optional lower-tier coverage in the figure in the appendix to 2 CFR part 180). Subpart C—Responsibilities of Participants Regarding Transactions § 1200.332 What methods must I use to pass requirements down to participants at lower tiers with whom I intend to do business? You as a participant must include a term or condition in lower-tier transactions requiring lower-tier participants to comply with Subpart C of the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this subpart. Subpart D—Responsibilities of Federal Agency Officials Regarding Transactions § 1200.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435? To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180 and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions. Subpart E Through J—[Reserved] Title 49—Transportation PART 29—[REMOVED] 2. Remove part 29. [FR Doc. E8-8788 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0248 Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-084-AD; Amendment 39-15500; AD 2008-09-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Support Limited Model Beagle B.121 Series 1, 2, and 3 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The Type Certificate Holder

(TCH)has received several reports of failed Rudder torque tube assemblies. The torque tube assemblies are subject to repetitive inspection in accordance with Airworthiness Directive 2060 PRE 80. The recent failures occurred in service after the inspections required by AD 2060 PRE 80 had been performed. In the event of such failures, loss of directional control through both the Rudder and Nosewheel Steering may occur. The TCH has also received reports of loose rivets attaching the inboard Anchor Assembly to the Starboard Torque Tube. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 6, 2008. On June 6, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4138; fax:

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 27, 2007 (72 FR 66087). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The Type Certificate Holder

(TCH)has received several reports of failed Rudder torque tube assemblies. The torque tube assemblies are subject to repetitive inspection in accordance with Airworthiness Directive 2060 PRE 80. The recent failures occurred in service after the inspections required by AD 2060 PRE 80 had been performed. In the event of such failures, loss of directional control through both the Rudder and Nosewheel Steering may occur. The TCH has also received reports of loose rivets attaching the inboard Anchor Assembly to the Starboard Torque Tube. The MCAI requires the inspection of the rudder torque tube assemblies and hubs for cracking and loose rivets with conditional correction or replacement following De Havilland Support Limited Service Bulletin B121/65, Issue 2, dated August 10, 2005. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Comment Issue: Reference the Correct TC Holder in the AD Trevor A. Wood requests that the FAA reference De Havilland Support Ltd.

(DHSL)in the proposed AD instead of British Aerospace Aircraft Group, Scottish Division. The commenter points out that DHSL is the organization that has published the service information, and he believes that the current type certificate data sheet for the Beagle B.121 series 1, 2, and 3 airplanes incorrectly references the type certificate holder. The commenter points out that the British Aerospace Aircraft Group, Scottish Division, relinquished responsibility for these airplanes in November 2002 when the type certificate was transferred to DHSL. The FAA does not agree that the NPRM incorrectly referenced British Aerospace Aircraft Group, Scottish Division, as the type certificate holder. We cannot change the type certificate data sheet without approval and request from the State of Design, in this case the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority

(CAA)and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). However, since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has received such approval and request. We have revised the type certificate data sheet (A22EU, Revision 4, dated March 20, 2008) to reference the type certificate holder of the Beagle B.121 series 1, 2, and 3 airplanes as De Havilland Support Limited. We have made the appropriate changes in the final rule AD action to reflect this. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $80, or $80 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000 for a cost of $10,960 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-19 De Havilland Support Limited:** Amendment 39-15500; Docket No. FAA-2007-0248; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-084-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Beagle B.121 series 1, 2, and 3 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: The Type Certificate Holder

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

(1)Within 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after June 6, 2008 (the effective date of this AD) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspect the rudder torque tube assemblies following De Havilland Support Limited Service Bulletin B121/65, Issue 2, dated August 10, 2005.

(2)Before further flight, replace any cracked rudder torque tube assemblies and correct any loose rivets in the rudder torque tube assemblies that are found in the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, following De Havilland Support Limited Service Bulletin B121/65, Issue 2, dated August 10, 2005.

(3)After June 6, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), used rudder torque assemblies held as spares for De Havilland Support Limited Model Beagle B.121 series 1, 2, and 3 airplanes must be inspected following De Havilland Support Limited Service Bulletin B121/65, Issue 2, dated August 10, 2005, and found free of cracks prior to installation. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4138; fax:

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

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

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

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

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

(h)Refer to MCAI United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority AD No: G-2005-0030, dated October 12, 2005; and De Havilland Support Limited Service Bulletin B121/65, Issue 2, dated August 10, 2005, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use De Havilland Support Limited Service Bulletin B121/65, Issue 2, dated August 10, 2005, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact De Havilland Support Limited, Building 123, Duxford Airfield, Cambridgeshire, CB2 4QR, England, telephone: +44 0 1223 830090; fax: +44 0 1223 830085; e-mail: *info@dhsupport.com* .

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 24, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9588 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0267; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-030-AD; Amendment 39-15505; AD 2008-09-24] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(516)228-7304; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 2008 (73 FR 12907). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features during configuration changes such as modifications and repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitations Items” of the Maintenance Requirements Manual of the affected models to introduce the required CDCCL. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 45 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $3,600, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-24 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Amendment 39-15505. Docket No. FAA-2008-0267; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-030-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)For all airplanes: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCLs specified in Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revisions

(TRs)ALI-55, dated April 19, 2006; and ALI-56, dated April 19, 2006; to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations Items,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements Manual

(MRM)PSM 1-84-7. Note 1: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the maintenance requirements manual. When the TR has been included in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be inserted into the maintenance requirements manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Part 2, Revision 4, dated October 30, 2003, of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 MRM PSM 1-84-7, Revision 4, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 2: 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, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Richard Fiesel, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7304; 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.

(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-2008-06, dated January 15, 2008; and Bombardier TRs ALI-55 and ALI-56, both dated April 19, 2006; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-55, dated April 19, 2006, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations Items,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements Manual PSM 1-84-7; and Dash 8 Q400 (Bombardier) Temporary Revision ALI-56, dated April 19, 2006, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations Items,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Maintenance Requirements Manual PSM 1-84-7; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9571 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0268; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-050-AD; Amendment 39-15504; AD 2008-09-23] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

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

(516)228-7330; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 2008 (73 FR 12905). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(h)of this AD to refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-07, dated January 25, 2008. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 297 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $23,760, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-23 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Amendment 39-15504. Docket No. FAA-2008-0268; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-050-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCL data specified in CRJ 700/900 Series Regional Jet (Bombardier) Temporary Revision 2-222, dated March 30, 2006, to Section 3, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053. Note 1: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of the TR into the maintenance requirements manual. When the TR has been included in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be inserted into the maintenance requirements manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Section 3, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, Revision 9, dated July 20, 2007, of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York 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: Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7330; 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.

(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-2008-07, dated January 25, 2008, and CRJ 700/900 Series Regional Jet (Bombardier) Temporary Revision 2-222, dated March 30, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use CRJ 700/900 Series Regional Jet (Bombardier) Temporary Revision 2-222, dated March 30, 2006, to Section 3, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9570 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0262; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-021-AD; Amendment 39-15493; AD 2008-09-12] 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: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

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

(516)228-7321; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12032). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 700 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $56,000, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-12 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Amendment 39-15493. Docket No. FAA-2008-0262; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-021-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCLs specified in Canadair Temporary Revision

(TR)2D-2, dated March 31, 2006, to Appendix D, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Requirements,” of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053. Note 1: The revision required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of the TR into the maintenance requirements manual. When the TR has been included in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be inserted into the maintenance requirements manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

(2)After accomplishing the action specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Appendix D, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Requirements,” Revision 7, dated May 10, 2007, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA)(or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: James Delisio, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone

(516)228-7321; 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.

(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-2007-35, dated December 21, 2007, and Canadair Temporary Revision 2D-2, dated March 31, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Canadair Temporary Revision 2D-2, dated March 31, 2006, to Appendix D, “Fuel System Limitations,” of Part 2, “Airworthiness Requirements,” of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP A-053, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9196 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28355; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-062-AD; Amendment 39-15495; AD 2008-09-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. This AD requires inspecting ground blocks GD261 and GD264 for corrosion, measuring the electrical bond resistance between the ground blocks and the airplane structure, separating the ground wires for the fuel boost pump circuit between ground blocks GD261 and GD264, and doing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report of random flashes of the six fuel pump low pressure lights and intermittent operation of the fuel boost pumps. We are issuing this AD to prevent the simultaneous malfunction of all six fuel boost pumps, which could cause the engines to operate on suction feed and potentially flame out. DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: 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 address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Binh Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6485; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31202). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting ground blocks GD261 and GD264 for corrosion, measuring the electrical bond resistance between the ground blocks and the airplane structure, separating the ground wires for the fuel boost pump circuit between ground blocks GD261 and GD264, and doing corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM AirTran Airways supports the NPRM. Request to Incorporate Revised Service Bulletin The NPRM referred to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, dated February 26, 2007, as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed requirements. Boeing requests that we revise the NPRM to refer to Revision 1 of the service bulletin, which Boeing issued after we issued the NPRM. We have reviewed the revised service bulletin. In Revision 1, dated November 28, 2007, Boeing removed certain annunciator checks, updated temperature control operational test instructions, and removed certain wire separation requirements. Revision 1 provides no substantive changes or additional work. We agree to revise the final rule to require Revision 1, and to provide credit for the original version. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,871 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost 1 $80 None $80 702 $56,160 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-14 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15495. Docket No. FAA-2007-28355; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-062-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, Revision 1, dated November 28, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of random flashes of the six fuel pump low pressure lights and intermittent operation of the fuel boost pumps. We are issuing this AD to prevent the simultaneous malfunction of all six fuel boost pumps, which could cause the engines to operate on suction feed and potentially flame out. Compliance

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

(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of ground blocks GD261 and GD264 for corrosion, measure the electrical bond resistance, and separate the ground wires for the fuel boost pump circuit between ground blocks GD261 and GD264. Do these actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, Revision 1, dated November 28, 2007. Do applicable corrective actions before further flight in accordance with the service bulletin. Credit for Actions in Accordance With Previous Service Information

(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, dated February 26, 2007, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

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

(i)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-28-1257, Revision 1, dated November 28, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9310 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0046; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-173-AD; Amendment 39-15496; AD 2008-09-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for any cracking of or damage to the left side and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of in-flight departure and separation of the flight deck windows. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the vinyl interlayer or damage to the structural inner glass panes of the flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows, which could result in loss of a window and rapid loss of cabin pressure. Loss of cabin pressure could cause crew communication difficulties or crew incapacitation. DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: 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 address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6447; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 17, 2007 (72 FR 58766). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for any cracking of or damage to the left side and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows and corrective actions if necessary. Changes Made to This AD We have deleted paragraph (h)(4) of the NPRM and added a new paragraph

(h)to this AD specifying that installation of metallic window blanks at cockpit eyebrow windows No. 4 and No. 5 in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate

(STC)ST01630SE terminates the initial and repetitive inspections for the flight deck No. 4 and No. 5 windows required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. Incorporation of STC ST01630SE is considered a terminating action, not an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), since an AMOC can only be issued after an AD has been issued. We have also reidentified the AMOC paragraph of the NPRM as paragraph

(i)in this AD. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the three commenters. Support for the NPRM Boeing and Continental Airlines support the NPRM. Request to Expand Applicability North Star Aerospace states that the affected window panels are also installed on Boeing Model 707 and 727 airplanes and Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes, and that it has witnessed failure of the windows on these airplanes. North Star Aerospace believes the inspections should be extended to include all airplanes equipped with window panels having part numbers (P/Ns) 5-89355-( ), 5-89357-( ), and 5-89358-( ). We infer the commenter requests that we revise the applicability to add Model 707 and 727 airplanes and Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes. Since the affected windows are interchangeable, we agree that the windows might be installed on all Model 707, 727, and 737 airplanes. However, we do not agree to expand the applicability of this AD, since we have issued separate rulemaking actions to address the unsafe condition on Model 707 and 727 airplanes and Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 series airplanes. Please refer to Docket Nos. FAA-2007-0264, FAA-2007-0265, and FAA-2007-0263, respectively, at *http://www.regulations.gov* . No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Revise the Compliance Time Continental Airlines requests that we revise the compliance time for the initial inspection of the flight deck No. 2 window to within 36 months or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the window installation. Continental Airlines states that the NPRM, which proposes to require the initial inspection within 24 months after the effective date of this AD regardless of the age or flight time of the window, unnecessarily penalizes operators who proactively inspect and replace the No. 2 window before the AD is issued. Continental Airlines also states that, according to the wording in the NPRM, a window replaced one day before the effective date of the AD would need to be re-inspected within 24 months, but a window inspected and replaced one day after the effective date of the AD would not need to be re-inspected until 36 months or 7,500 window flight hours, whichever is first. We do not agree to revise the compliance time for the initial inspection of the flight deck No. 2 window. According to paragraph

(e)of this AD, an operator is responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. If the initial inspection of the No. 2 window was done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1023, dated May 24, 2007, then the initial inspection does not need to be accomplished again; only the repetitive inspections would need to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin at the applicable interval specified in the service bulletin. If the initial and repetitive inspections of the No. 2 window are done before the effective date of this AD, but are not done in accordance with the service bulletin, then those inspections are not acceptable for compliance with this AD unless an AMOC is issued for those prior inspections. Under the provisions of paragraph

(i)of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that prior inspections incorporate similar criteria to what is provided for in the service bulletin. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request for an AMOC for a Parts Manufacturer Approval

(PMA)Equivalent Part Continental Airlines states that the FAA has approved a new, improved flight deck No. 2 window designed by GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems, under PMA Holder No. PQ1250NM, Supplement 10, dated September 17, 2007. Continental Airlines states that the new, improved No. 2 window was designed to prevent the premature failure of the window, and that new, improved window addresses the unsafe condition of the NPRM. Continental Airlines, therefore, requests that we add a new AMOC paragraph to this AD, which would exempt the new, improved No. 2 window from the required inspections. We do not agree to allow the PMA equivalent No. 2 window as an AMOC to the required inspections. Although the window has been approved as a PMA equivalent part, the commenter has not provided data showing that the PMA equivalent window is not susceptible to the same vinyl interlayer cracking. However, under the provisions of paragraph

(i)of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the design change would provide an acceptable level of safety. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 2,685 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 799 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required inspections take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $127,840, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-15 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15496. Docket No. FAA-2007-0046; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-173-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. 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 reports of in-flight departure and separation of flight deck windows. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the vinyl interlayer or damage to the structural inner glass panes of the flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows, which could result in loss of a window and rapid loss of cabin pressure. Loss of cabin pressure could cause crew communication difficulties or crew incapacitation. 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. Repetitive Inspections and Replacement

(f)At the applicable times specified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1023, dated May 24, 2007, except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Do the internal and external detailed inspections for any cracking of or damage to the left side and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows and do the applicable corrective actions before further flight, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin. Exception to Compliance Times

(g)Where Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1023, dated May 24, 2007, specify counting the compliance time from “* * * the date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires counting the compliance time from the effective date of this AD. Optional Terminating Action

(h)Installation of metallic window blanks at cockpit eyebrow windows No. 4 and No. 5 in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate ST01630SE terminates the initial and repetitive inspections for the flight deck No. 4 and No. 5 windows required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. All other applicable actions required by paragraph

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

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

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(j)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1023, dated May 24, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9312 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28664; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-007-AD; Amendment 39-15492; AD 2008-09-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection to determine the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts. For airplanes having composite gray water drain masts, this AD also requires installation of a bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. This AD results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system due to a lightning strike on a composite drain mast, which could result in the loss of several functions essential for safe flight. DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: 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 address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Wilson, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6476; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37475). That NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection to determine the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts. For airplanes having composite gray water drain masts, that NPRM also proposed to require installation of a bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the single comment received. Request To Remove Airplanes From the Applicability Statement of the Proposed AD Boeing requests that we revise the applicability statement of the NPRM to remove certain airplanes. Boeing states that Model 777 airplanes beginning with line number 525 have a ground bracket and copper bonding jumper installed in production for the aft composite gray water drain mast, and an aluminum drain mast installed in the forward drain mast position. Additionally, Boeing points out that all Model 777-200LR series airplanes produced prior to line number 525 have a bonding jumper installed on the aft composite gray water drain mast and an aluminum forward gray water drain mast. Therefore, Boeing asserts that these airplanes should not be subject to this AD. We partially agree. For the reasons Boeing stated, we have determined that these airplanes should not be subject to this AD. However, we do not agree to revise the applicability statement of this AD as suggested by Boeing. Instead, we have revised the applicability statement of this final rule to state, “This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006.” We have confirmed that the effectivities of these service bulletins match the applicability suggested by Boeing. Explanation of Changes Made to This AD We have confirmed with the airplane manufacturer that the composite and aluminum drain mast can be interchangeable. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph (i), “Parts Installation,” to this final rule to prohibit installation of a composite gray water drain mast, unless a bonding jumper is also installed, as specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. We have also re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 164 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection to determine gray water drain mast material 1 $80 None $80 20 $1,600. Installation of bonding jumper 4 80 Between $132 and $274, depending on kit and number of kits needed (1 or 2) Between $452 and $594 Up to 20 Between $9,040 and $11,880. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-11 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15492. Docket No. FAA-2007-28664; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-007-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast found during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire near a composite drain mast and possible disruption of the electrical power system due to a lightning strike on a composite drain mast, which could result in the loss of several functions essential for safe flight. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection To Determine Material of Gray Water Drain Mast

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the forward and aft gray water drain masts to determine whether the drain mast is made of aluminum or composite material. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the material of the forward and aft gray water drain masts can be conclusively determined from that review.

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

(f)of this AD, no further action is required by this AD for that drain mast only.

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

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

(g)of this AD. Installation of Bonding Jumper

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

(f)of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install a bonding jumper between a ground and the clamp on the tube of the gray water composite drain mast, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006. Installation of Bonding Jumper Not Necessary for Aluminum Drain Masts

(h)For airplanes on which the forward composite drain mast has been replaced with an aluminum drain mast per Boeing Service Bulletin 777-38-0026: Installation of the bonding jumper specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD is not required for the forward gray water drain mast, as specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006. Parts Installation

(i)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a composite gray water drain mast, unless a bonding jumper is also installed, as specified in paragraph

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

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

(k)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-30-0014, dated July 24, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9113 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0015; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-328-AD; Amendment 39-15498; AD 2008-09-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, and MD-10-10F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, and MD-10-10F airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for the presence of stray nickel or chrome plating deposits on the air filler valve bore of certain main landing gear

(MLG)shock strut cylinders, and if necessary, related investigative and corrective actions. Doing the corrective action terminates the repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report of a left MLG collapse during landing rollout. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct stray nickel and chrome plating deposits, corrosion, and cracking of the air filler valve bore on the MLG cylinder, which could result in landing gear failure, significant damage to the airplane, and injury to personnel. DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Moreland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5238; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, and MD-10-10F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2206). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for the presence of stray nickel or chrome plating deposits on the air filler valve bore of certain main landing gear

(MLG)shock strut cylinders, and if necessary, related investigative and corrective actions. Doing the corrective action would terminate the repetitive inspections. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received from the commenter. Support for the NPRM The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), supports the intent of the NPRM. Request To Reduce the Compliance Time ALPA requests that we reduce the 24-month compliance time for the airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(2) of the NPRM. ALPA requests the reduction in compliance time due to the stated severity of a landing gear failure, the relatively short inspection times, and the low estimated inspection costs. We do not agree to reduce the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. In developing the compliance time for this AD action, we considered not only the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, but the average utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of an orderly inspection of the fleet during regular maintenance periods, and the availability of replacement parts. In addition, we also considered the manufacturer's recommendation for an appropriate compliance time. After considering all the available information, we determined that the 24-month compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time in which the required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. However, if additional data are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we might consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 75 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per product Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection 4 $80 $320, per inspection cycle 75 $24,000, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-17 McDonnell Douglas** : Amendment 39-15498. Docket No. FAA-2008-0015; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-328-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, and MD-10-10F airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-32A259, dated October 30, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of a left main landing gear

(MLG)collapse during landing rollout. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct stray nickel and chrome plating deposits, corrosion, and cracking of the air filler valve bore on the MLG cylinder, which could result in landing gear failure, significant damage to the airplane, and injury to personnel. Compliance

(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Inspections and Corrective Actions

(f)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, do a video probe inspection for the presence of stray nickel or chrome plating deposits on the air filler valve bore of the MLG shock strut cylinders, and before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-32A259, dated October 30, 2007. Repeat the video probe inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight cycles or 20 months, whichever occurs first. Accomplishment of the repair specified in Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin or the replacement specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin terminates the repetitive inspections for that MLG shock strut cylinder.

(1)For passenger airplanes: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

(2)For freighter airplanes with MLG cylinders that have accumulated fewer than 7,200 flight cycles in a freighter configuration as of the effective date of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

(3)For freighter airplanes with MLG cylinders that have accumulated 7,200 flight cycles or more in a freighter configuration as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. Parts Installation

(g)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a MLG shock strut cylinder assembly, part number ARG7002-1, -501, -503, or -505, on any airplane, unless the air filler valve bore hole has been oversized and closing action has been accomplished in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-32A259, dated October 30, 2007, and the MLG shock strut cylinder assembly has been permanently identified with part number SB10320259-3 adjacent to the existing ARG7002 part number. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Maureen Moreland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5238; fax

(562)627-5210; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(i)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-32A259, dated October 30, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9439 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0266; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-AD; Amendment 39-15506; AD 2008-09-25] 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 AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

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

(516)228-7330; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 2008 (73 FR 12912). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of Proposed Amendment

(NPA)2002-043. The identified non-compliances were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required. The assessment showed that it is necessary to introduce Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), in order to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features during configuration changes such as modifications and repairs, or during maintenance actions. Failure to preserve critical fuel tank system ignition source prevention features could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitations List” of the Maintenance Program Manuals of the affected aircraft models to introduce the required CDCCL. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the CDCCL data. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 118 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $9,440, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-25 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Amendment 39-15506. Docket No. FAA-2008-0266; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-013-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all 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, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

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

(1)For all airplanes: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, or before December 16, 2008, whichever occurs first, revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the CDCCL data specified in the applicable temporary revision

(TR)to the applicable maintenance program manual (MPM). The TRs are listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Temporary Revisions Model de Havilland TR Maintenance program manual DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC-8-106 airplanes AWL-98, dated April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 MPM, Product Support Manual

(PSM)1-8-7. DHC-8-201, and DHC-8-202 airplanes AWL 2-35, dated April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 MPM, PSM 1-82-7. DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes AWL 3-103, dated April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 MPM, PSM 1-83-7. Note 1: The revisions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable maintenance program manual. When the TR has been included in the general revision of the maintenance program, the general revision may be inserted into the maintenance program manual, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR, and the temporary revision may be removed.

(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative CDCCLs may be used unless the CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the applicable de Havilland Dash 8 Series MPM listed in Table 2 of this AD, that is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent); or unless the CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Table 2.—MPMs Model MPM DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC-8-106 airplanes Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” Revision 17, dated April 19, 2005, of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 MPM, PSM 1-8-7. DHC-8-201, and DHC-8-202 airplanes Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” Revision 5, dated August 15, 2001, of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 MPM, PSM 1-82-7. DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” Revision 16, dated August 15, 2001, of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 MPM, PSM 1-83-7. FAA AD Differences Note 2: 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:

(516)228-7330; 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.

(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-2008-03, dated January 3, 2008, and the TRs specified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use the service information specified in Table 3 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 3.—Material Incorporated by Reference de Havilland temporary revision— Dated— To— AWL-98 April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual 1-8-7. AWL 2-35 April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual 1-82-7. AWL 3-103 April 12, 2006 Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual 1-83-7. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9567 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0081; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-186-AD; Amendment 39-15497; AD 2008-09-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

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

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

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

(SB)A320-27-1164 mandated by EASA AD 2006-0223. These issues could lead to a degradation of the integrity of the THSA primary load path and to secondary load path partial or full engagement. Degradation of the THSA primary load path could result in latent (undetected) loading and eventual failure of the THSA secondary load path, with consequent uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 2007 (72 FR 60591). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A number of occurrences of an incorrect installation of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator

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

(SB)A320-27-1164 mandated by EASA AD 2006-0223. These issues could lead to a degradation of the integrity of the THSA primary load path and to secondary load path partial or full engagement. This AD therefore mandates a one-time detailed visual inspection of specific parts of the THSA attachments. Degradation of the THSA primary load path could result in latent (undetected) loading and eventual failure of the THSA secondary load path, with consequent uncontrolled movement of the horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane. The corrective actions include doing a one-time detailed visual inspection of the lower and the upper THSA attachments for correct installation and the presence of metallic particles, contacting Airbus for repair instructions if any installation deviations or metallic particles are found, and doing repairs. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Request to Withdraw the NPRM The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member Northwest Airlines (NWA), requests that we reconsider the need for this proposed AD. NWA states that the proposed rule is based on reports from Airbus of a number of occurrences of incorrect THSA installations that resulted from published procedures not being followed either during aircraft production or by operators after delivery of the aircraft. NWA agrees that an incorrectly installed THSA could be a safety concern, but asserts that accomplishing a one-time inspection will not prevent improper THSA installations in the future, and does not understand what corrective action is being taken (or should be taken) to prevent similar installation problems in the future. Furthermore, NWA feels that the airplane maintenance manual

(AMM)is clear and concise regarding THSA installation procedures and states that, unless incorrect installations were accomplished during production or the AMM installation instructions were incorrect, a one-time inspection mandated by an AD is unwarranted. NWA asserts that it has accomplished AD 2007-06-02, amendment 39-14983 (72 FR 12072, March 15, 2007), on all its Model A319 and A320 airplanes with no findings of note. (AD 2007-06-02, which corresponds to EASA AD 2006-0223, dated July 21, 2006, requires inspections of the upper and lower THSA attachments for proper clearances, and for the presence of cracking, damage, and metallic particles.) NWA concludes that incorrect installations due to operator error should be addressed by actions other than issuing an all-fleet AD. Although we understand NWA's concern, we do not agree with this request. If incorrect THSA installation was limited to only one operator (an isolated case of not following maintenance instructions), an AD would not have been an appropriate method of dealing with the situation. However, as THSA installation errors have been reported at multiple operators, and installation errors could result in the identified unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes, an AD is appropriate. Further, we have determined that, although technically correct, the maintenance instructions were insufficiently clear to ensure that no confusion could occur during installation of the THSA. In regard to future installations, Airbus has informed us that the maintenance instructions have been revised and clarified to prevent confusion during any future installation of the THSA. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 721 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $173,040, or $240 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-16 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15497. Docket No. FAA-2007-0081; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-186-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

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

(MSN)up to and including MSN 2860. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

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

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

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

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

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

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

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

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

(425)227-2141; fax

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

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

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

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

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

(h)Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0178, dated June 22, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated January 12, 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27A1179, dated January 12, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9441 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD; Amendment 39-15499; AD 2008-09-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Taylorcraft, Inc. Models A, B, and F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Taylorcraft, Inc. Models A, B, and F series airplanes. This AD requires you to inspect the wing strut attach fittings for corrosion or cracks and requires repair or replacement if corrosion or cracks are found. This AD results from data collected from an accident involving a Taylorcraft Model BF12-65 airplane. The wing separated from the airplane after the wing strut attach fitting failed due to corrosion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the wing strut attach fittings, which could result in failure of the wing strut attach fittings and lead to wing separation and loss of control. DATES: This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2008. On June 6, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone: 956-986-0700. To view the AD docket, go 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, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2008-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, SAT-MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:

(210)308-3365; fax:

(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On February 12, 2008, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Taylorcraft, Inc. Models A, B, and F series airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9239). The NPRM proposed to require inspection of the wing strut attach fittings for corrosion or cracks and to require repair or replacement if corrosion or cracks are found. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment: Comment Issue No. 1: Additional Wording The Experimental Aircraft Association and four other commenters ask for us to add wording to the final rule to allow repairing the fitting/fuselage structure in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular

(AC)43.13-1B. The commenters believe the Taylorcraft fuselage structure, comprised of welded steel tubing and flat plate fittings, is well within the scope of repair practice for an Airframe and Powerplant (A & P) mechanic experienced in maintaining aircraft of that vintage. They comment that it is reasonable to expect an experienced mechanic to have sufficient information and means available to rebuild the fitting area with guidance from AC 43.13-1B. We agree that repair of the Taylorcraft fuselage welded structure is within the scope of repair criteria and guidance provided in AC 43.13-1B. We will add language in paragraph (e)(3) of the AD to allow for repair of the attach fitting and the associated fuselage structure in accordance with AC 43.13-1B. Comment Issue No. 2: Requirements Already Exist Marc Fries and four other commenters believe the AD is redundant and that requirements already exist to accomplish inspections of the attach fittings. The commenters believe that 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D already provides sufficient annual/100-hour inspection requirements to inspect the wing strut attach fittings. Some of the commenters cite poor maintenance practice as the root cause for the corrosion related fitting failure in the fatal accident airplane. One commenter additionally mentioned that AD 47-16-03 already covers inspection of Taylorcraft wing attach fittings. We do not agree with the commenters. AD 47-16-03 only addressed inspection of wing strut attach fittings for cracks or evidence of poor welds in Taylorcraft Models BC, BF, and BL series aircraft. The AD was issued for a potential manufacturing quality issue. The AD did not address corrosion and required an immediate one-time compliance. While 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D requires inspection of wing and center section components for general condition and security of attachment, the FAA has heard from Taylorcraft owners that they were unaware of the existence of drain holes in the bottom of the wing strut attach fittings. Also, some owners were unaware of the potential situation where fabric may cover the attach fitting and drain holes on re-covered airplanes. This condition was a contributing factor in the fatal accident, as it fostered the corrosion environment that led to eventual fitting failure. The FAA believes this condition is likely to exist in other Taylorcraft airplanes of the same type design and inspection of all affected airplanes is warranted for continued operational safety. We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for the change previously discussed and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that this change and these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 3,119 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 2 work-hours × $80 per hour = $160 Not applicable $160 $499,040 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair/replacement: Labor cost per fitting Parts cost per fitting Total cost per airplane (for two fittings) 30 work-hours × $80 per hour = $2,400 $200 $5,200 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 AD. 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 other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD” in your request. 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 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. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows: **2008-09-18 Taylorcraft, Inc.:** Amendment 39-15499; Docket No. FAA-2008-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-093-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all serial numbers of Taylorcraft Models A, BC, BCS12-D, BCS, BC12-D1, BC-65, BCS12-D1, BCS-65, BC12D-85, BC12-65 (Army L-2H), BCS12D-85, BCS12-65, BC12D-4-85, BC12-D, BCS12D-4-85, (Army L-2G) BF, BFS, BF-60, BFS-60, BF-65, BFS-65, (Army L-2K) BF 12-65, BFS-65, BL, BLS, (Army L-2F) BL-65, BLS-65, (Army L-2J) BL12-65, BLS12-65, 19, F19, F21, F21A, F21B, F22, F22A, F22B, and F22C airplanes that are certificated in any category. Note: This AD applies to all Taylorcraft models listed above, including those models not listed in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-002, dated November 8, 2007. If there are any other differences between this AD and the above service bulletin, this AD takes precedence. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from data collected from an accident involving a Taylorcraft Model BF12-65 airplane. The wing separated from the airplane after the wing strut attach fitting failed due to corrosion. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the wing strut attach fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the wing strut attach fittings and lead to wing separation and loss of control. Compliance

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done:

(1)Initially inspect the left and right wing lift strut attach fittings, part number (P/N) A-A11, for corrosion or cracking following Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-002, dated November 8, 2007, using the following compliance times:

(i)*For airplanes that have never been equipped with floats or snow skis:* Within the next 90 days after June 6, 2008 (the effective date of this AD).

(ii)*For airplanes equipped with or that have ever been equipped with floats or snow skis:* Within the next 30 days after June 6, 2008 (the effective date of this AD).

(2)If the airplane is equipped with floats or snow skis at the time of the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD or at any time after the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, you must repeat the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD as follows: If the following exists: Then:

(i)The airplane is equipped with floats or snow skis at the time of the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Inspect no later than 48 months following the initial inspection and repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months. Continue these repetitive inspections until removal of floats or snow skis, at which time you must follow paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(ii)You remove floats or snow skis at any time following the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Inspect no later than 48 months following the last inspection. After the inspection following removal of floats or snow skis, no further inspections are required unless floats or snow skis are re-installed at a later date, at which time you must follow paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this AD.

(iii)You install floats or snow skis at any time since the initial inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Inspect no later than 48 months following the last inspection or before further flight after installation of floats or snow skis, whichever occurs later, and repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months. Continue these repetitive inspections until removal of floats or snow skis, at which time you must follow paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(3)If you find cracking or material loss due to corrosion during any of the inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, before further flight, do the following:

(i)Contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC at 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone: 956-986-0700 to obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme or replacement procedure; or refer to FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B CHG 1, dated September 27, 2001; and

(ii)Repair or replace the left and/or right wing lift strut attach fitting(s), P/N A-A11. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, SAT-MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:

(210)308-3365; fax:

(210)308-3370. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

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

(g)You must use Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-002, dated November 8, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone: 956-986-0700.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 23, 2008. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9397 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29043; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-177-AD; Amendment 39-15494; AD 2008-09-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural significant item (SSI), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure. This AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. We are issuing this AD to maintain the continued structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. DATES: This AD is effective June 6, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: 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 address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind, Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6440; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive

(AD)that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 24, 2007 (72 FR 48597). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural significant item (SSI), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the four commenters. Requests To Allow Alternative Inspections for Previously Repaired/Altered Structure Boeing, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines request that the NPRM be revised to include a provision for alternative inspections when a repair area prohibits operators from doing the inspections specified in paragraph

(h)of the NPRM. The commenters request that the initial alternative inspection be done within 12 months after the repair is discovered during the initial inspection required by paragraph (h). Two of the commenters point out that there is a similar provision in paragraph

(e)of AD 98-11-04 R1, amendment 39-10984 (64 FR 987, January 7, 1999). The commenters state that including such a provision will assist operators. We agree. We have added a new paragraph

(i)to this AD (and reidentified subsequent paragraphs) that provides alternative inspections to those in paragraph

(h)of this AD. Request To Allow Compliance With the Repair Assessment Program

(RAP)Southwest and United request that the RAP be considered an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)for the supplemental structural inspection document

(SSID)inspections of any repaired or modified SSI specified in paragraph

(h)of the NPRM. United States that the FAA approved the RAP as an AMOC for those areas of the fuselage covered by repairs for Models 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. Southwest states that multiple requirements for an individual repaired or modified area will create confusion, and that eventually the alternate inspection procedures will either be duplicated or only approved for one program. We partially agree. We agree with the commenters that some of the inspection areas subject to the requirements of this AD also may be included in the RAP. The owner/operator of an affected airplane or Boeing, on behalf of the owner/operator, will need to perform an evaluation of each of these areas of the airplane to determine if the actions performed in accordance with the RAP meet the requirements of the SSID inspection program. Our understanding is that Boeing is looking into this evaluation; however, we have not received any data supporting a request for an AMOC. Once the evaluation has been completed, the owner/operator or Boeing may submit the data to substantiate that those actions performed in accordance with the RAP would provide an acceptable level of safety, under the provisions of paragraph

(l)of this AD. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Delegate Approval of Structure Affected by Winglet Modifications Southwest requests that the NPRM be revised to allow an Authorized Representative

(AR)for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization to approve AMOCs for modified or altered structure such as winglets. Without such a provision, Southwest states that operators of airplanes on which winglets have been installed in accordance with a supplemental type certificate

(STC)will need to seek AMOCs directly from the FAA. Southwest believes that such a provision would reduce the workload for operators and the FAA. We do not agree. At this time, we cannot authorize Boeing ARs to approve repair data or AMOCs for non-Boeing type design products such as STCs for which Boeing does not have access to the design data. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Approve NPRM as a Method of Compliance With Aging Airplane Safety Final Rule (AASFR) Southwest and United request that the NPRM be approved as a method of compliance for the AASFR for the relevant SSIs. We partially agree. We agree with the commenters that compliance with this AD would be an acceptable means of compliance with the AASFR for the baseline structure of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM included such a statement, which is restated in this final rule. In addition, the Supplemental Inspections section of the AASFR states, “The FAA will accept a SSID program for the baseline structure of an airplane developed by the OEM and approved by the FAA. If a SSID does not consider repairs, alterations, and modifications (RAMs), as required by this rule, the FAA would not accept it as a means to comply with this portion of the rule.” Therefore, we find that no change to the final rule is necessary. Request To Allow Zonal and Surveillance Inspections British Airways requests that zonal and surveillance inspections be considered acceptable for the general visual inspection specified in Boeing Document D6-82669, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007 (hereafter “the SSID”) (referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed actions). We do not agree. Each operator's maintenance inspection program defines inspection terminology. That maintenance inspection program might be defined by different revisions of the Maintenance Steering Group

(MSG)procedures or other procedures accepted by the operator's Certificate Management Office. Because inspection definitions have changed over time, each operator must confirm that the maintenance inspections procedures (e.g., surveillance or general visual inspections) it performs are equivalent to those specified in section 5.0 of the SSID to take damage tolerance rating

(DTR)credit for the SSID program. In addition, while zonal inspection programs include general visual inspections of an area, including the structure in that area, the zonal program might not include the same general visual inspection required by the SSID such as the specific structural detail, the frequency to do the inspection, and the requirement to do the inspection in the direction specified. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Extend Compliance Time of Reporting Requirement Southwest and United also request that the compliance time for the reporting requirement in Section 6.0, “SSI Discrepancy Reporting,” of the SSID be revised from 5 to 30 days. The commenters state that 5 days is insufficient time for reviewing documentation from various maintenance bases. We do not agree. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with cracks involving an SSI or related structure in close vicinity to the SSI as well as the recommendations of the manufacturer. In consideration of these items, we have determined that a 5-day compliance time for reporting discrepant inspection findings will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the cracking, and eventually to develop a final action to address the unsafe condition. However, according to the provisions of paragraph

(l)of this AD, we might approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. Request To Identify Differences Between the AD and the SSID British Airways requests that all differences between the AD and the SSID be identified. British Airways states that such differences were identified in other SSID ADs. We partially agree. We agree with the commenter to identify differences between the AD and the SSID and did so in the Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information section of the NPRM. However, we find that no change to the final rule is necessary, since that section of the NPRM does not reappear in the final rule. Request To Clarify a Certain Section of the Preamble of the NPRM Boeing requests that the Issuance of Advisory Circular

(AC)section in the preamble of the NPRM be clarified. Boeing states that AC No. 91-56, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,” dated May 6, 2001, applies to airplanes certified under the fail-safe and fatigue requirements of Civil Air Regulations

(CAR)4b or part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 25), not damage tolerance structural requirements as stated in the Issuance of AC section of the NPRM. We agree with Boeing that the identified section could be clarified. However, no change has been made to the final rule since the identified sections of the NPRM do not reappear in the final rule. Explanation of Change to Reported Incidents We have revised the AD to specify that this AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking only. Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance The requirements for the baseline structure of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes are currently described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 129.109(b)(1), not in 14 CFR 121.370(a) and 129.16 as indicated in the third paragraph of the Cost of Compliance section of the NPRM. Therefore, we have revised the Costs of Compliance section of the AD accordingly. Explanation of Editorial Changes We have revised references to the title of Boeing Document D6-82669 from “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document,” to “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes” in this AD. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,961 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revision of maintenance inspection program 1,200 per operator (26 U.S. operators) $80 $96,000 per operator 599 $2,496,000. Inspections 600 per airplane 80 $48,000, per airplane, per inspection cycle 599 $28,752,000 per inspection cycle. The number of inspection work hours, as indicated above, is presented as if the accomplishment of the actions in this AD are to be conducted as “stand alone” actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for the most part will be done coincidentally or in combination with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional inspection work hours will be minimal in many instances. Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane scheduling will be minimal. Further, compliance with this AD will be a means of compliance with the AASFR for the baseline structure of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The AASFR requires certain operators to incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 129.109(b)(1). Accomplishment of the actions required by this AD will meet the requirements of these CFR sections for the baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection portion of this AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR final rule. 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-09-13 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15494. Docket No. FAA-2007-29043; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-177-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective June 6, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. We are issuing this AD to maintain the continued structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Compliance

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

(f)The term “the SSID,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Document D6-82669, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007. Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program

(g)Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the required damage tolerance rating

(DTR)for each structural significant item

(SSI)listed in the SSID. (The required DTR value for each SSI is listed in the SSID.) The revision to the maintenance inspection program must include and must be implemented in accordance with the procedures in Section 5.0, “Damage Tolerance Rating

(DTR)System Application,” and Section 6.0, “SSI Discrepancy Reporting” of the SSID. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (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. Initial and Repetitive Inspections

(h)Except as provided by paragraph

(i)of this AD: Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the applicable initial inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, in accordance with the SSID. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 3.0, “Implementation” of the SSID.

(i)For any SSI that has been repaired or altered before the effective date of this AD such that the repair or design change affects your ability to accomplish the actions required by paragraph

(h)of this AD: You must request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with section 39.17 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.17), at the initial compliance time specified in paragraph

(h)of the AD; or do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at the times specified in those paragraphs, as an approved means of compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(h)of this AD.

(1)At the initial compliance time specified in paragraph

(h)of the AD, identify each repair or design change to that SSI.

(2)Within 12 months after the identification of a repair or design change required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, assess the damage tolerance characteristics of each SSI affected by each repair or design change to determine the effectiveness of the applicable SSID inspection for that SSI and if not effective, incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include a damage-tolerance based alternative inspection program for each affected SSI. Thereafter, inspect the affected structure in accordance with the alternative inspection program. The inspection method and compliance times (i.e., threshold and repeat intervals) of the alternative inspection program must be approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(l)of this AD. Repair

(j)If any cracked structure is found during any inspection required by paragraph

(h)or

(i)of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracked structure using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(l)of this AD. Inspection Program for Transferred Airplanes

(k)Before any airplane that is subject to this AD and that has exceeded the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD can be added to an air carrier's operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the inspections required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1)For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with this AD: The inspection of each SSI must be done by the new operator in accordance with the previous operator's schedule and inspection method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment for that SSI inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment of this inspection must be measured from the last inspection accomplished by the previous operator. After each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must be performed in accordance with the new operator's schedule and inspection method.

(2)For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance with this AD: The inspection of each SSI required by this AD must be done either before adding the airplane to the air carrier's operations specification, or in accordance with a schedule and an inspection method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. After each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must be done in accordance with the new operator's schedule. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(m)You must use Boeing Document D6-82669, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The document contains the following errors:

(i)Pages 8.0.3 and 8.0.4 of Section 8.0, as specified in the List of Effective Pages, do not exist.

(ii)There are two sets of pages (four pages total) with the same page numbers in Section 11.3 (i.e., pages E.30.1 and E.30.2). The first set of page numbers (i.e., DTR Check Form for Item E-30 and the following blank page) is correct. The second set of page numbers (i.e., DTR Check Form for Item E-31 and the following blank page) is incorrect. Those pages should be identified as page numbers 31.1 and 31.2, as specified in the List of Effective Pages.

(iii)None of the pages are dated. The issue date for those pages is May 2007, as specified in the Revision Highlights section.

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

(3)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

(4)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 8, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9316 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0471; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-AD; Amendment 39-15508; AD 2008-10-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company 172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210, and 303 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210, and 303 series airplanes. This AD requires you to inspect the alternate static air source selector valve to assure that the part number identification placard does not obstruct the alternate static air source selector valve port. If the part number identification placard obstructs the port, this AD requires you to remove the placard, assure that the port is unobstructed, and report to the FAA if obstruction is found. This AD results from reports of improper installation of the part number identification placard on the alternate static air source selector valve. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent erroneous indications from the altimeter, airspeed, and vertical speed indicators, which could cause the pilot to react to incorrect flight information and possibly result in loss of control. DATES: This AD becomes effective on May 12, 2008. We must receive any comments on this AD by July 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD. • *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. To view the comments to this AD, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . The docket number is FAA-2008-0471; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4154; fax: 316-946-4107; e-mail address: *david.fairback@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We recently received reports of improper installation of the part number identification placard on alternate static air source selector valves of certain Cessna 172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210, and 303 series airplanes. The part number identification placard refers to alternative air source selector valves, part number 2013142-18 that were manufactured between November 20, 2007, and February 18, 2008. The part number identification placard was installed on the valve body in a location that covers the port, which is the inlet for static air reference into the valve. The problem was discovered during a quality control check. All parts held in stock at Cessna have been corrected. Cessna has no way of verifying how many of these assemblies were manufactured and sent to the field with the part number identification placard installed over the alternate static air source selector valve port. We have no way of determining which airplanes have the remaining problem alternate static air source selector valve assemblies installed without having all of the affected airplanes and spares stock inspected. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the altimeter, airspeed, and vertical speed indicators displaying erroneous indications. This could cause the pilot to react to incorrect flight information and possibly result in loss of control. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires inspecting the alternate static air source selector valve to assure that the part number identification placard does not obstruct the alternate static air source selector valve port. If the part number identification obstructs the port, this AD requires you to remove the placard, assure that the port is unobstructed, and report to the FAA if obstruction is found. In preparing this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to get technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We have included a discussion of information that may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket. 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 erroneous indications from the altimeter, airspeed, and vertical speed indicators could cause the pilot to react to incorrect flight information and possibly result in loss of control. 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 an opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2008-0471; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the 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 concerning 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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information 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 Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-10-02 Cessna Aircraft Company:** Amendment 39-15508; Docket No. FAA-2008-0471; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-025-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective on May 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to airplanes listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this AD that:

(1)Have a part number (P/N) 2013142-18 alternate static air source selector valve installed after November 19, 2007; and

(2)Are certificated in any category: Table 1.—Applicability for Airplanes That Had the Affected Part Installed at Manufacture Model Serial Nos. (S/Ns) 172S 172S10672 through 172S10674, 172S10676, 172S10678 through 172S10680, 172S10682, 172S10683, and 172S10685. 182T 18282062 and 18282065. T182T T18208822 and T18208828. 208 20800417, 20800418, and 20800419. 208B 208B1294 through 208B1310. Note 1: Airplanes listed in Table 1 may have also had the affected part installed as a replacement part. Table 2.—Applicability for Airplanes That Could Have Had the Affected Part Installed as a Replacement Part or From Parts Held as Spares Model S/Ns 172 All S/Ns. 172R All S/Ns beginning with 17280001. 172S 172S8001 through 172S10671. F172D All S/Ns. F172E All S/Ns. F172F All S/Ns. F172G All S/Ns. F172H All S/Ns. F172K All S/Ns. F172L All S/Ns. F172M All S/Ns. F172N All S/Ns. F172P All S/Ns. FR172E All S/Ns. FR172F All S/Ns. FR172G All S/Ns. FR172H All S/Ns. FR172J All S/Ns. FR172K All S/Ns. P172D All S/Ns. R172E (USAF T-41B) (USAF T-41C and D) All S/Ns. R172F (USAF T-41) All S/Ns. R172G (USAF T-41C or D) All S/Ns. R172H (USAF T-41D) All S/Ns. R172J All S/Ns. R172K All S/Ns. 172RG All S/Ns. 175 All S/Ns. 180 All S/Ns. 182 All S/Ns. 182S 18280001 through 18280944. 182T 18280945 through 18282061. R182 All S/Ns. T182 All S/Ns. TR182 All S/Ns. T182T T18208001 through T18208821. F182P All S/Ns. F182Q All S/Ns. FR182 All S/Ns. 185 All S/Ns. 206 All S/Ns. 206H All S/Ns beginning with 20608001. P206 All S/Ns. U206 All S/Ns. T206H All S/Ns beginning with T20608001. TU206A All S/Ns. TU206B All S/Ns. TU206C All S/Ns. TU206D All S/Ns. TU206E All S/Ns. TU206F All S/Ns. TU206G All S/Ns 207 All S/Ns. 208 20800001 through 20800416. 208B 208B0001 through 208B1293. 210 All S/Ns. 210-5

(205)All S/Ns. T210F All S/Ns. T210G All S/Ns. T210H All S/Ns. T210J All S/Ns. T210K All S/Ns. T210L All S/Ns. T210M All S/Ns. T210N All S/Ns. T210R All S/Ns. T303 All S/Ns. Note 2: P/N 2013142-18 replaced P/Ns 2013142-9, -13, and -17. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD is the result of reports of improper installation of the part number identification placard on the alternate static air source selector valve. We are issuing this AD to prevent erroneous indications from the altimeter, airspeed, and vertical speed indicators, which could cause the pilot to react to incorrect flight information and possibly result in loss of control. Compliance

(e)For all affected airplanes, to address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Inspect the alternate static air source selector valve to assure that the part number identification placard is not obstructing the port.

(i)*For static air source selector valves installed before May 12, 2008 (The effective date of this AD):* Before further flight after May 12, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), and

(ii)*For static air source selector valves installed as modification or replacement parts on or after May 12, 2008 (the effective date of this AD):* Before further flight after installation of a P/N 2013142-18 alternate static air source selector valve. Inspection of the part before installation is acceptable.

(A)Adjust the pilot and copilot seats as far aft as possible.

(B)Use a flashlight and mirror to inspect the alternate static air source selector valve to assure the port on the forward end of the valve is clearly visible and not covered by the part number identification placard.

(2)If the alternate static air source selector valve port is found obstructed by the part number identification placard during any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, remove the placard from the valve body, discard the placard, and assure that the port is open and unobstructed. Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where the port is found obstructed. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following 14 CFR 43.9.

(f)Report the results of the inspection required by this AD where an obstruction was found to the FAA.

(1)Submit this report within 10 days after the inspection or 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(2)Use the form in Figure 1 of this AD and submit it to FAA, Manufacturing Inspection District Office, Mid-Continent Airport, 1804 Airport Road, Room 101, Wichita, Kansas, 67209; or fax to

(316)946-4189.

(3)The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approved the information collection requirements contained in this regulation under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. ER02MY08.045 Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(g)The Manager, Wichita 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:* David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4154; fax: 316-946-4107; e-mail address: *david.fairback@faa.gov* . 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on April 28, 2008. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9719 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30604; Amdt. No 3266] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This Rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes STANDARD Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2008. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination* — 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . *Availability* —All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone:

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

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

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

(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18, 2008. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: * * * Effective 8 May 2008 Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Amdt 1 Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 24, Amdt 1 Smithville, TN, Smithville Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig * * * Effective 5 June 2008 Mojave, CA, Mojave, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Rifle, CO, Garfield County Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Walden, CO, Walden-Jackson County, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig Walden, CO, Walden-Jackson County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 1R, ILS RWY 1R (CAT II); ILS RWY 1R (CAT III), Amdt 23A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 19L, Amdt 13A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 1C, Orig-A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 19C, ILS RWY 19C (CAT II); ILS RWY 19C (CAT III) Amdt 24A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 12, Amdt 5A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, CONVERGING ILS RWY 19C, Amdt 7A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 1C, Orig-A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, RNAV

(GPS)Y RWY 19C, Amdt 2A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 1C, Orig-B Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, RNAV

(RNP)Z RWY 19C, Orig-A Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig St Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, St. Petersburg-Clearwater Intl, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1 St Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, St. Petersburg-Clearwater Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Metter, GA, Metter Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 10, Orig Metter, GA, Metter Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 28, Orig Metter, GA, Metter Muni, NDB OR GPS RWY 10, Amdt 2A, CANCELLED Metter, GA, Metter Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Reidsville, GA, Swinton Smith Fld at Reidsville Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 11, Orig Reidsville, GA, Swinton Smith Fld at Reidsville Muni, NDB RWY 11, Amdt 7 Arco, ID, Arco-Butte County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 1 Driggs, ID, Driggs-Reed Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Pocatello, ID, Pocatello Regional, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Glasgow, KY, Glasgow Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 7, Amdt 1 Glasgow, KY, Glasgow Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 25, Amdt 1 Glasgow, KY, Glasgow Muni, VOR/DME RWY 7, Amdt 8 Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 15, Orig Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 22, Orig Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 33, Orig Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, NDB OR GPS RWY 22, Amdt 8A, CANCELLED Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 15, ILS RWY 15 (CAT II); ILS RWY 15 (CAT III), Amdt 6 Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 12 Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, VOR-A, Amdt 3 Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, VOR/DME RWY 15, Amdt 4 Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, VOR/DME RWY 33, Amdt 7 Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, RADAR-1, Amdt 4 Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 15, Orig Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 33, Orig Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, GPS RWY 15, Orig-A, CANCELLED Bangor, ME, Bangor Intl, GPS RWY 33, Orig-A, CANCELLED Portland, ME, Portland Intl Jetport, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Minneapolis, MN, Flying Cloud, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 St Paul, MN, St Paul Downtown Holman FLD, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7 Colstrip, MT, Colstrip, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Ocracoke, NC, Ocracoke Island, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Devils Lake, ND, Devils Lake Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 3, Orig Devils Lake, ND, Devils Lake Rgnl, VOR RWY 3, Orig Devils Lake, ND, Devils Lake Rgnl, VOR RWY 21, Orig Teterboro, NJ, Teterboro, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 6, Amdt 1 Binghamton, NY, Greater Binghamton/Edwin A. Link Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Cincinnati, OH, Cincinnati Muni Airport—Lunken Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 12 Springfield, OH, Springfield-Backley Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Greenville, SC, Donaldson Center, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 5 Pine Ridge, SD, Pine Ridge, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 30, Orig Pine Ridge, SD, Pine Ridge, GPS RWY 30, ORIG-B, CANCELLED Alice, TX, Alice Intl, LOC/DME RWY 31, Orig Alice, TX, Alice Intl, LOC RWY 31, Amdt 6, CANCELLED Borger, TX, Hutchinson County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Orig Borger, TX, Hutchinson County, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Orig Borger, TX, Hutchinson County, VOR RWY 17, Amdt 9 Borger, TX, Hutchinson County, VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 4 Borger, TX, Hutchinson County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Decatur, TX, Decatur Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 17, Orig Decatur, TX, Decatur Muni, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 35, Orig Decatur, TX, Decatur Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 La Grange, TX, Fayette Rgnl Air Center, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 16, Amdt 1 La Grange, TX, Fayette Rgnl Air Center, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 34, Amdt 1 La Grange, TX, Fayette Rgnl Air Center, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Marfa, TX, Marfa Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Richfield, UT, Richfield Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Louisa, VA, Louisa County/Freeman Field, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 27, Orig Louisa, VA, Louisa County/Freeman Field, NDB OR GPS RWY 27, Orig-B, CANCELLED Louisa, VA, Louisa County/Freeman Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 32 Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 7, Amdt 2 Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 20, Amdt 1 West Point, VA, Middle Peninsula Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 4 West Point, VA, Middle Peninsula Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 10, Orig West Point, VA, Middle Peninsula Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Bremerton, WA, Bremerton National, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 1, Orig-A Philippi, WV, Philippi/Barbour County Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 8, Orig Philippi, WV, Philippi/Barbour County Rgnl, RNAV

(GPS)RWY 26, Orig Philippi, WV, Philippi/Barbour County Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig On April 14, 2008 (73 FR 19998) the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30600, Amdt No. 3262 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under sections 97.23 effective June 5, 2008 which are hereby rescinded: Monticello, NY, Sullivan County Intl, VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 1, Amdt 3, CANCELLED Monticello, NY, Sullivan County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2, CANCELLED On April 16, 2008 (73 FR 20527) the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30602, Amdt No. 3264 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under sections 97.27 effective June 5, 2008 which is hereby rescinded: Burlington/Mount Vernon, WA, Skagit Rgnl, GPS RWY 28, Orig-A, CANCELLED [FR Doc. E8-9288 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS FREEDOM (LCS 1) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply. DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2008 and is applicable beginning March 10, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This rule will revise various sections of 32 CFR part 706 previously amended by 72 FR 72946 on December 26, 2007. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS FREEDOM (LCS 1) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light at a height not less than 12 meters above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 3 (a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship and the horizontal distance between the masthead lights shall not be less than one-half of the length of the vessel; Annex I, paragraph 2(i)iii, pertaining to the three lights in the task light array being equally spaced. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements. Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Navy Department amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 706-CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 2. Section 706.2 is amended by removing paragraphs 22 and 23 following Table Five and adding a new paragraph 22 under Table Four, to read as follows: § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. 22. On the following ships the vertical separation of the task lights do not meet the vertical spacing requirements described by Annex I, 2(i)(iii). Table Four Vessel No. Vertical separation of the task light array is not equally spaced, the separation between the middle and lower task light exceed the separation between the upper and middle light by * * * * * * * USS FREEDOM LCS 1 0.39 meter. * * * * * * * Approved: April 22, 2008. M. Robb Hyde, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). [FR Doc. E8-9669 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 70, and 71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089; FRL-8560-9] RIN 2060-AN77 Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the “Major Emitting Facility” Definition; Notice of Action Denying Petition for Reconsideration and Denying Request for Stay AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Action Denying Petition for Reconsideration and Request for a Stay. SUMMARY: The EPA is providing notice that it has responded to a petition for reconsideration of the final rule published May 1, 2007, entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the `Major Emitting Facility' Definition.” (“ethanol rule”) The final ethanol rule changed the effect of the applicability provisions of two separate permitting programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA): the major New Source Review

(NSR)program and the Title V programs. The final rule changed the “major stationary source” and “major source” definitions by amending the definition of “chemical process plants” under the regulatory definition of “major emitting facility” to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes. On July 2, 2007, EPA received a petition for reconsideration pursuant to 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”). The NRDC petition also requested that EPA stay implementation of the final rule pending reconsideration of the rule. The NRDC petition for reconsideration can be found in the rulemaking docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089. The EPA considered the petition and the information in the rulemaking docket in reaching a decision on the petition. The EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson denied the petition for reconsideration and the request for a stay of the rule in a letter to the petitioner dated March 27, 2008. The letter documents EPA's reasons for the denial and can be found in the rulemaking docket. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Joanna Swanson, Air Quality Policy Division, (C339-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number:

(919)541-5282; fax number:

(919)541-5509; e-mail address: *swanson.joanna@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. How Can I Obtain Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? This **Federal Register** notice, the petition for reconsideration, and the letter denying the petition for reconsideration and the request for a stay of the rule during the reconsideration are available in the docket that EPA established for the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the `Major Emitting Facility' Definition” rulemaking (Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089). The table below identifies the petitioner, the date EPA received the petition, the document identification number for the petition, the date of EPA's response, and the document identification number for EPA's response. Note that all the document numbers listed in the table are in the form of “EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089-xxxx.”) Petitioner Date of petition to EPA Petition: Document No. in docket Date of EPA response EPA response: Document No. in docket Natural Resources Defense Council 7/2/2007 −0153.1 3/27/2008 −0155 The docket for EPA's denial of NRDC's petition for reconsideration is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., confidential business information 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 through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0089, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is

(202)566-1742. In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice of EPA's decision denying NRDC's petition for reconsideration and request for a stay of the rule pending reconsideration and of EPA's response letter to NRDC outlining the reasons for the denial will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following signature by the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, a copy of this notice will be posted on EPA's New Source Review Web site, under Regulations & Standards, at *http://www.epa.gov/nsr.* Dated: April 24, 2008. Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E8-9749 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1146; FRL-8561-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia: Transportation Conformity Requirement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions establish State transportation conformity requirements. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This rule is effective on July 1, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 2, 2008. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** and inform the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1146 by one of the following methods: A. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. *E-mail: febbo.carol@epa.gov* . C. *Mail:* EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1146, Carol Febbo, Chief, Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch, Mailcode 3AP23, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. *Hand Delivery:* At the listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2007- 1146. 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. 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), disclosure of which 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 during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street, SE., Charleston, WV 25304. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Kotsch,

(215)814-3335, or by e-mail at *kotsch.martin@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean EPA. I. What Is Transportation Conformity? II. What Is the Background for This Action? III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It? IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is Transportation Conformity? Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of the approved SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and those areas redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas), with plans developed under section 175A of the Clean Air Act for the following transportation related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). Conformity with the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Federal transportation conformity regulations (Federal Rule) are found in 40 CFR part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390. II. What Is the Background for This Action? On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised certain provisions of section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, related to transportation conformity. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, states were required to address all of the Federal Rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU, state's SIPs were required to contain all or portions of only the following three sections of the Federal Rule, modified as appropriate to each state's circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to implement certain kind of control measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (written commitments to implement certain kinds of mitigation measures). Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU, States are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of the Federal conformity rule. III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It? On April 12, 2007, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for Transportation Conformity purposes. The SIP revision consists of six executed Memorandums of Understanding

(MOUs)which will constitute the State of West Virginia SIP for transportation conformity purposes. The six MOUs were executed among the State of West Virginia and the various Metropolitan Planning Organizations within the State of West Virginia which have responsibility for undertaking transportation conformity in conjunction with transportation planning activities along with the three Federal Agencies (EPA, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration) who are participating members in the conformity consultation process. These MOUs which make up the SIP revision address the three provisions of the EPA Conformity Rule required under SAFETEA-LU: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (certain control measures), and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (mitigation measures). We reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the February 14, 2006, “Interim Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity provisions in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)”. The guidance document can be found at *http://epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm* . The guidance document states that each state is only required to address and tailor the afore-mentioned three sections of the Federal Conformity Rule in their state conformity SIPs. EPA's review of West Virginia's Transportation Conformity SIP revision indicates that it is consistent with EPA's guidance in that it included the three elements specified by SAFETEA-LU and EPA's guidance. Consistent with the EPA Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures), paragraph (a)(2) of each of the executed MOUs establishes the requirements for the appropriate agencies, procedures and allocation of responsibilities as required under 40 CFR 93.105 for consultation procedures. In addition, the executed MOUs provide for appropriate public consultation/public involvement consistent with 40 CFR 93.105. With respect to 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c), paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of the executed MOUs specifies that written commitments for control measures and mitigation measures for meeting these requirements will be provided as needed. IV. Final Action EPA is hereby approving the West Virginia SIP revision for Transportation Conformity, which was submitted on April 12, 2007. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's **Federal Register** , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on July 1, 2008, without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 2, 2008. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state rule as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ); • 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); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General 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 action 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). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 1, 2008. 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 to approve the West Virginia Transportation Conformity SIP 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 15, 2008. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph

(e)is amended by adding an entry for State of West Virginia Transportation Conformity Requirements at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * Name of non- regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * State of West Virginia Transportation Conformity Requirements Entire State 04/12/2007 05/02/2008 [ *Insert page number where the document begins* ] Memoranda of Understanding between EPA, FHWA, FTA, State of West Virginia, and six Metropolitan Planning Organizations. [FR Doc. E8-9608 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-8021] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202)646-2953. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act* . This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act* . The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification* . This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism* . This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform* . This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act* . This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region III Virginia: Rural Retreat, Town of, Wythe County 510212 May 8, 2007, Emerg; May 8, 2007, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp May 2, 2008 May 2, 2008. Wytheville, Town of, Wythe County 510181 November 29, 1973, Emerg; April 3, 1978, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do* do. Wythe County, Unincorporated Areas 510180 March 15, 1974, Emerg; February 1, 1979, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Region IV Kentucky: Elkhorn City, City of, Pike County 210356 September 1, 1979, Emerg; November 1, 1985, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Region V Illinois: Carbondale, City of, Jackson County 170298 January 14, 1975, Emerg; November 1, 1979, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Dowell, Village of, Jackson County 170875 April 20, 1979, Emerg; December 5, 1989, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Elkville, Village of, Jackson County 170876 April 15, 1976, Emerg; December 18, 1984, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Gorham, Village of, Jackson County 170954 August 2, 1993, Emerg;—,Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Jackson County, Unincorporated Areas 170927 August 4, 1993, Emerg;—, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Makanda, Village of, Jackson County 170301 March 17, 1980, Emerg; March 15, 1982, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Mill Creek, Village of, Union County 170659 September 6, 1974, Emerg; October 5, 1984, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Murphysboro, City of, Jackson County 170302 April 11, 1975, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Union County, Unincorporated Areas 170656 May 1, 1974, Emerg; February 19, 1986, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Vergennes, Village of, Jackson County. 170973 December 16, 2002, Emerg;—, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Region VI Louisiana: Baker, City of, East Baton Rouge Parish 225193 September 11, 1970, Emerg; September 11, 1970, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Central, City of, East Baton Rouge Parish 220060 April 6, 2007, Emerg; April 6, 2007, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. East Baton Rouge Parish, Unincorporated Areas 220058 June 12, 1970, Emerg; July 2, 1979, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. Zachary, City of, East Baton Rouge Parish 220061 July 2, 1973, Emerg; September 15, 1977, Reg; May 02, 2008, Susp ......do do. *......do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: April 28, 2008. Michael K. Buckley, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-9691 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 24 and 27 [WT Docket No. 03-264; FCC 08-85] Amendment of Various Rules Affecting Wireless Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts certain amendments to its rules governing radiated power limits for broadband Personal Communications Services in the 1850-1915/1930-1995 MHz bands

(PCS)and certain Advanced Wireless Services

(AWS)in the 1710-1755/2110-2155 MHz bands. The rule changes offer greater flexibility to PCS and AWS operators, are more technologically neutral, will better accommodate broadband technologies, and will fulfill the Commission's statutory mandate under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). *See* 47 U.S.C. 161. DATES: Effective June 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Shafran, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at *Nina.Shafran@fcc.gov* , or

(202)418-2781. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Third Report and Order* , in WT Docket No. 03-264, FCC No. 08-85, adopted March 18, 2008 and released March 21, 2008. The full text of the document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the FCC's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone

(202)488-5300, facsimile

(202)488-5563, or via e-mail at *FCC@BCPIWEB.COM* . The full text may also be downloaded at *http://www.fcc.gov.* Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files and audio format) by e-mailing *fcc504@fcc.gov* , or calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice), or

(202)418-0432 (TTY). Synopsis of the Third Report and Order In this *Third Report and Order* , the Commission adopts certain amendments to the PCS and AWS radiated power rules, consistent with actions previously taken by the Commission in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* ( *April 700 MHz Order* ) at 72 FR 27688, May 16, 2007 ( *Report and Order* ), and at 72 FR 24238, May 2, 2007 ( *FNPRM* ), and the *700 MHz Second Report and Order* ( *August 700 MHz Order* ) at 72 FR 48814, August 24, 2007. On July 22, 2005, the Commission adopted a *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in a Biennial Review proceeding commenced in 2004 to streamline and harmonize certain licensing provisions in the wireless radio services

(WRS)(as defined in the Commission's rules) at 70 FR 61049, October 20, 2005 ( *Report and Order* ), and at 70 FR 60770, October 19, 2005 ( *FNPRM* ) ( *Streamlining FNPRM* ). In that document, the Commission sought comment on certain proposed amendments—particularly the proposed changes introduced into the record by CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA)—to the Commission's radiated power rules for PCS and AWS. The Commission also sought comment on whether the changes proposed by CTIA for PCS and AWS (CTIA Proposal) should be applicable to other services, such as part 22 cellular, additional part 27 services, including the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, as well as, other services specifically addressed in certain parties' submissions in this docket, such as the 1670-1675 MHz band. Additionally, the Commission considered whether changes to other technical rules might be warranted in conjunction with changes to the radiated power rules. In the *April 700 MHz Order* , in which the Commission combined various proceedings regarding the 700 MHz band, the Commission also incorporated issues raised in the instant proceeding (WT Docket No. 03-264) as they pertain to the 700 MHz band, and extended certain relief requested by CTIA to the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band. Relief included

(1)implementation of a power spectral density

(PSD)model for measuring radiated power, based on “watts per megahertz of spectrum bandwidth” rather than on “watts per emission,” and

(2)permitting radiated power to be measured using “average” rather than “peak” values. In the *August 700 MHz Order* , the Commission specified power limits in terms of PSD for 700 MHz public safety broadband operations, and also specified that power for 700 MHz public safety broadband operations must be measured in terms of average rather than peak values. In the *Third Report and Order* , the Commission maintains regulatory parity and extends similar relief to the PCS and AWS bands. Specifically, in the PCS and AWS radiated power rules, the Commission:

(1)Adds a PSD model for licensees operating with bandwidth greater than one megahertz; and

(2)modifies the rules to permit radiated power to be measured and expressed using average rather than peak values. Also in the PCS and AWS radiated power rules, the Commission specifies certain coordination requirements for licensees that operate at higher power levels permissible in rural areas. I. Discussion A. Power Spectral Density Model 1. Consistent with its decision in the *April 700 MHz Order* , and based on the record developed in response to the *Streamlining FNPRM* , the Commission adopts a PSD model for defining equivalent isotropically radiated power

(EIRP)limits for PCS and AWS base stations, thereby establishing EIRP caps on a “per megahertz of spectrum bandwidth” basis rather than on a “per emission” basis. The Commission agrees with CTIA and other commenters that application of this watts-per-megahertz approach to radiated power in these flexible bands is more likely to encourage innovation and will not require modifications as new technologies emerge. 2. The Commission also finds that narrowband licensees should not be required to operate below current EIRP limits, and therefore establishes a bandwidth dividing line for purposes of applying PSD in the modified rule. Systems using emissions that have a bandwidth wider than 1 megahertz generally use their entire spectrum contiguously in each cell, whereas systems using emissions with a bandwidth less than 1 megahertz use, at each cell, a number of narrower channels separated by several channels not used in that cell. If a technology is developed using 500 kilohertz-1 megahertz bandwidth, the technology is more likely to use different channels at different cells like other narrowband systems, rather than a spread-spectrum approach as is typically used in wideband systems. Consistent with recent amendments to the radiated power rules in the *April 700 MHz Order* (regarding the 700 MHz Commercial Services band) and the *August 700 MHz Order* (regarding public safety broadband operations), the Commission will allow PCS and AWS licensees employing bandwidths greater than 1 megahertz to meet a base station power limit of 1640 watts/MHz EIRP (that is, no more than 1640 watts EIRP in any 1 megahertz band segment). PCS and AWS licensees operating with bandwidths of 1 megahertz or less will, however, continue to be permitted to operate at power levels up to 1640 watts EIRP over their bandwidth. Thus, for example, a licensee transmitting a signal with a bandwidth of 5 megahertz could employ a power level of 8200 watts EIRP over the 5 megahertz bandwidth, with each 1 megahertz band segment within the 5 megahertz bandwidth being limited to 1640 watts EIRP; and a licensee transmitting a signal with a bandwidth of 200 kilohertz could employ a power level of 1640 watts EIRP over the 200 kilohertz bandwidth. Consistent with the current PCS and AWS rules, and pursuant to amendments via a *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* ( *Rural R&O* ) at 69 FR 75144 ( *Report and Order* ), and 69 FR 75174 ( *FNPRM* ) at December 15, 2004, in WT Docket No 02-381, licensees will be permitted in rural areas to operate at double the non-rural power limit, subject to the new PSD model; that is, the rural radiated power limit is increased from 3280 watts EIRP to 3280 watts/MHz EIRP for PCS and AWS licensees operating with bandwidth wider than 1 megahertz. 3. *Coordination* . In order to balance the need for licensee flexibility with the Commission's concern for limiting potential increased interference from higher power wideband operations, the Commission will, consistent with the Commission's current rules, require rural PCS and AWS licensees operating at greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP to coordinate with adjacent block licensees in their respective services that are authorized to operate within 75 miles of the transmitting base station. Further, consistent with current rules:

(1)PCS rural operation greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP will be limited to base stations located more than 120 kilometers (75 miles) from the Canadian border and more than 75 kilometers (45 miles) from the Mexican border; and

(2)AWS rural stations operating at greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP will be required to coordinate in advance with all Government and non-Government satellite entities in the 2025-2110 MHz band and with all Broadband Radio Service

(BRS)licensees authorized under part 27 in the 2155-2160 MHz band. B. Peak vs. Average Radiated Power Limits 4. The Commission's PCS and AWS rules currently limit permissible EIRP on a peak basis. A number of the newer technologies, such as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing

(OFDM)and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), produce an emission with sub-microsecond power spikes. When measuring and expressing power levels in terms of peak EIRP, transient power spikes of extremely short duration might unnecessarily govern the operating power of stations that use the newer, wideband technologies. Consistent with the Commission's decision to permit licensees to meet radiated power limits on an average basis in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band as well as for 700 MHz public safety broadband operations, the Commission finds that the public interest would be served by amending the rules to similarly treat PCS licensees and AWS licensees. The Commission agrees with CTIA that average measurement techniques should be permitted for PCS and AWS base stations, and also agrees with Ericsson that the same reasons for permitting average power measurements for base stations apply for mobile and portable units as well. Accordingly, the Commission adopts changes to its rules to permit average power limits for PCS and AWS base stations, mobiles and portables. 1 1 Licensees will remain subject to existing environmental regulations. *See, e.g.* , 47 CFR 1.1307 and 1.1310; *id.* 2.1091 (governing RF radiation exposure evaluation specifically for mobile devices); *id.* 2.1093 (governing RF radiation exposure evaluation specifically for portable devices). 5. Measurement of average power for PCS and AWS operations under the revised rules, for base stations as well as handsets, must be made during a period of continuous transmission based on a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth. The Commission directs parties to consult with the FCC Laboratory staff for guidance on the appropriate method of measuring average power for particular technologies. The Commission also clarifies that the calculation method that AWS licensees must use if they choose to continue measuring power in terms of peak, rather than average, values is the same method currently specified for PCS licensees. *See* 47 CFR 24.232(d). 6. The Commission also concludes that it serves the public interest to adopt a peak-to-average ratio

(PAR)limit of 13 dB to mitigate the potential for undesirable interference that could result otherwise from the use of average values. As in the *April 700 MHz Order* , the Commission finds that limiting PAR to 13 dB for PCS and AWS licensees strikes the right balance between enabling such licensees to use modulation schemes with high PARs (such as OFDM) and protecting other licensees from high PAR transmissions. C. No Doubling of Baseline Power Limits 7. Based on the record in this proceeding, and taking into account the Commission's adoption of the PSD model for wideband PCS and AWS operations, the Commission finds no justification for a baseline doubling of EIRP limits for PCS or AWS base stations at this time. Comments filed in response to the *Streamlining FNPRM* did not contain specific examples of problems caused by the current EIRP limits that could be solved by increasing the limits. Moreover, some commenters expressly recognize that today's technologies do not fully utilize the proposed higher power rates, and the record does not reflect that today's PCS systems, for example, use the full radiated power currently provided under the Commission's existing rules. With respect to rural operations, commenters did not demonstrate that rural systems have been deployed taking full advantage of the recently doubled rural radiated power limits and that, notwithstanding such increased power, rural coverage is inadequate. Commenters thus failed to justify a need for doubling radiated power levels independent of implementing a PSD model. The Commission emphasizes its conclusion that adoption of the PSD model is forward looking and will foster broadband development. It will permit licensees deploying WCDMA, for example, to operate at up to 8200 watts EIRP (non-rural) and 16,400 watts EIRP (rural), whereas under the Commission's existing rules, licensees deploying WCDMA systems are limited to 1640 watts EIRP (non-rural) and 3280 watts EIRP (rural). The Commission's decision declining to further increase PCS and AWS radiated power limits independent of a PSD model is consistent with the Commission's recent actions in the *April 700 MHz Order* and the *August 700 MHz Order* . D. No Changes to Rules for Wireless Services Other Than PCS and AWS 8. In the *Streamlining FNPRM* , the Commission considered whether the CTIA Proposal should be applicable to part 22 services and other part 27 services that operate under a flexible regulatory framework similar to PCS, as well as other services. In adopting or amending any technical rules, the Commission must take into account the potential for increased interference as well as other adverse effects on licensees. Certain factors at issue with one service may not be present or relevant with other services. 9. The Commission specifically sought comment on application of the CTIA Proposal to the 2.3 GHz band, but concludes that the record does not support such application to this band at this time. The Commission also specifically considered and sought comment on application of the CTIA Proposal to BRS and Educational Broadband Service

(EBS)stations operating in the 2500 MHz bands, as well as stations operating in the 800 MHz cellular band. Because frequencies immediately adjacent to the 800 MHz cellular band and the 2500 MHz BRS/EBS band are still undergoing significant restructuring to support a mixture of technologies and services, the Commission decides to maintain the radiated power limits set forth in the current rules for those bands rather than implementing changes at this time. The Commission also concludes that this proceeding is not the appropriate forum in which to consider concerns raised by TerreStar about safeguards for the AWS H-Block systems; those concerns are more appropriately resolved in the relevant ongoing proceeding. 10. *1670-1675 MHz Band* . Section 27.50(f)(1) of the Commission's rules specifies a peak 2 kW EIRP limit for fixed and base station operations in the 1670-1675 MHz band. In the S *treamlining FNPRM* , the Commission sought comment on the request by OP LLC (a subsidiary of Crown Castle International Corp (Crown Castle)), the sole nationwide licensee in the 1670-1675 MHz band, to apply PSD to the entire 1670-1675 MHz band and to double the 2 kW power limit for rural markets to 4 kW EIRP. On the same date on which the Commission released the *Streamlining FNPRM* (August 9, 2005), Crown Castle separately filed a request for waiver of the 2 kW EIRP limit for the 1670-1675 MHz band and requested authority to operate in the band using a PSD model at increased power levels, specifically at 4 kW EIRP/MHz in non-rural areas and at 8 kW EIRP/MHz in rural areas. Crown Castle at that time planned to launch a new one-way (base-to-mobile) nationwide service (called Modeo) to wireless handsets with at least 10 video and 24 audio channels using the new Digital Video Broadcasting—Transmission System for Handheld Terminals (DVB-H) technology. Crown Castle later limited its request to thirty initial markets and stated that it would operate using a 5-MHz carrier bandwidth at each base station. 11. In February 2007, the Commission conditionally granted Crown Castle waiver relief, authorizing deployment of its proposed system using PSD at 4 kW/MHz and 8 kW/MHz for non-rural and rural areas, respectively, limited to thirty specified markets and the White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona, for which Crown Castle had been the recipient of a tribal lands bidding credit in the Commission's 2003 Auction No. 46 via *Memorandum Opinion and Order* at 22 FCC Rcd 4322 (rel. Feb. 26, 2007) ( *Crown Castle Waiver Order* ). In order to limit interference, the Commission expanded the geographic area currently set forth in its part 1 rules within which Crown Castle must coordinate its 1670-1675 MHz band operations with certain incumbent federal government users. The Commission also adopted detailed coordination and consultation conditions to protect vital National Weather Service and radio astronomy facilities from harmful interference. The waiver grant was subject to several other conditions. 12. In July 2007, Crown Castle announced that it would not deploy a nationwide DVB-H system to provide Modeo service for which it had sought increased power levels. Rather, effective July 23, 2007, Crown Castle leased, via a *de facto* transfer lease, its spectrum in the 1670-1675 MHz band to TVCC One Six Holdings, LLC (TVCC). 13. In the *Third Report and Order* , the Commission declines to apply the PSD model by rule to the entire nationwide 1670-1675 MHz band as Crown Castle requested. Because Crown Castle has chosen not to deploy a DVB-H system in the band, the record is insufficient for the Commission to determine whether the public interest would be served by granting additional power for other markets for the 1670-1675 MHz band. TVCC is entitled to avail itself of the relief granted through waiver for the 30 markets specified in Crown Castle's Initial Market Deployment Plan, subject to the conditions in the *Crown Castle Waiver Order* . In addition, TVCC may submit a waiver request, with appropriate justification, for similar relief in additional markets. 14. Accordingly, the rule changes that the Commission adopts in this document are limited to those governing PCS and AWS stations, as defined at the outset of this document. II. Procedural Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 15. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)was incorporated in the *Streamlining FNPRM* in this Biennial Review proceeding, which the Commission launched in 2004 to fulfill its mandate to conduct biennial reviews under section 11 of the Act. With the goal of streamlining and harmonizing certain WRS licensing provisions, the Commission sought written comment on certain proposed amendments to its radiated power rules. The Commission also requested written comment on whether changes to other technical rules might be warranted in conjunction with changes to the radiated power rules. Additionally, the Commission sought written public comment on the IRFA. No comments specifically addressed the IRFA. 16. In the *Third Report and Order* , the Commission takes further steps to streamline and harmonize its rules related to WRS by adopting modifications to the rules governing radiated power limits for PCS and AWS (as defined above). Specifically, whereas the existing rules set the radiated power limits in terms of watts-per-emission regardless of bandwidth size, the Commission will now permit use of a PSD model, with radiated power levels calculated on a watts-per-megahertz basis, when operating with greater than 1 megahertz bandwidth. The PSD approach offers more flexibility, is more technologically neutral, and will better accommodate newer technologies employing wider bandwidths. Also, the PSD model will potentially reduce infrastructure costs, thus enabling rural service providers to offer enhanced service in these areas. The Commission also will now permit PCS and AWS licensees to measure and express radiated power on an average rather than peak basis. This approach is more realistic and more appropriate for newer wireless technologies producing emissions with sub-microsecond power spikes. 17. Because of interference concerns, the Commission is declining to double the baseline radiated power limits for PCS/AWS. In addition, to mitigate the potential for increased interference to other licensees that could result from measuring average (rather than peak) radiated power, the Commission is adopting a PAR limit of 13 dB. At this time, the Commission is not adopting similar changes to the radiated power rules for other services, but maintains the February, 2007 waiver relief granted to Crown Castle in the 1670-1675 MHz band. As Crown Castle is the sole national licensee of spectrum in that band, the waiver relief does not directly affect any other licensees. 18. The above-described rule changes are generally supported by the commenting parties. None of the modifications imposes increased reporting burdens on PCS or AWS licensees, nor does the Commission expect the rule changes to result in increased costs for such licensees. As noted above, infrastructure costs potentially will be reduced, particularly in rural areas. The changes are designed to improve flexibility for licensees employing wideband technologies used to provide advanced, high speed services, while maintaining interference control. The Commission believes they will prove beneficial to such PCS and AWS licensees and not have any adverse economic impact on them. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the rule changes adopted in the *Third Report and Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification conforms to the RFA. *See* 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 2. Report to Congress 19. The Commission will send a copy of this *Third Report and Order* , including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. *See* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the *Third Report and Order* (including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification) will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the **Federal Register** . *See* 5 U.S.C. 605(b). B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 20. This *Third Report and Order* does not contain any proposed, new, or modified information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. *See* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). III. Ordering Clauses 21. Pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 7, 11, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 332, the rule changes as set forth *are adopted* . 22. The rule changes as set forth *will become effective* June 2, 2008. 23. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau *shall send* a copy of this *Third Report and Order* , including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 24 Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio, Wireless radio services. 47 CFR Part 27 Communications common carriers, Radio, Wireless radio services. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Rules Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 24 and 27 as follows: PART 24—PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332. 2. Revise § 24.232 to read as follows: § 24.232 Power and antenna height limits.

(1)Base stations with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less are limited to 1640 watts equivalent isotropically radiated power

(EIRP)with an antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT, except as described in paragraph

(b)below.

(2)Base stations with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz are limited to 1640 watts/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power

(EIRP)with an antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT, except as described in paragraph

(b)below.

(3)Base station antenna heights may exceed 300 meters HAAT with a corresponding reduction in power; *see* Tables 1 and 2 of this section.

(4)The service area boundary limit and microwave protection criteria specified in §§ 24.236 and 24.237 apply. Table 1.—Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300 Meters, With Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less HAAT in meters Maximum EIRP watts ≤300 1640 ≤500 1070 ≤1000 490 ≤1500 270 ≤2000 160 Table 2.—Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300 Meters, With Emission Bandwidth Greater Than 1 MHz HAAT in meters Maximum EIRP watts/MHz ≤300 1640 ≤500 1070 ≤1000 490 ≤1500 270 ≤2000 160

(1)Base stations that are located in counties with population densities of 100 persons or fewer per square mile, based upon the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less are limited to 3280 watts equivalent isotropically radiated power

(EIRP)with an antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT.

(2)Base stations that are located in counties with population densities of 100 persons or fewer per square mile, based upon the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz are limited to 3280 watts/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power

(EIRP)with an antenna height up to 300 meters HAAT.

(3)Base station antenna heights may exceed 300 meters HAAT with a corresponding reduction in power; *see* Tables 3 and 4 of this section.

(4)The service area boundary limit and microwave protection criteria specified in §§ 24.236 and 24.237 apply.

(5)Operation under this paragraph

(b)at power limits greater than permitted under paragraph

(a)of this section must be coordinated in advance with all broadband PCS licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base station and is limited to base stations located more than 120 kilometers (75 miles) from the Canadian border and more than 75 kilometers (45 miles) from the Mexican border. Table 3.—Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300 Meters, With Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or Less HAAT in meters Maximum EIRP watts ≤300 3280 ≤500 2140 ≤1000 980 ≤1500 540 ≤2000 320 Table 4.—Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300 Meters, With Emission Bandwidth Greater Than 1 MHz HAAT in meters Maximum EIRP watts/MHz ≤300 3280 ≤500 2140 ≤1000 980 ≤1500 540 ≤2000 320

(c)Mobile and portable stations are limited to 2 watts EIRP and the equipment must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.

(d)Power measurements for transmissions by stations authorized under this section may be made either in accordance with a Commission-approved average power technique or in compliance with paragraph

(e)of this section. In both instances, equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the provisions of § 24.51. In measuring transmissions in this band using an average power technique, the peak-to-average ratio

(PAR)of the transmission may not exceed 13 dB.

(e)Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth, sensitivity, *etc.* , so as to obtain a true peak measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the channel. Note to § 24.232: Height above average terrain

(HAAT)is to be calculated using the method set forth in § 24.53 of this part. PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 3. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted. 4. Revise § 27.50(d) to read as follows: § 27.50 Power and antenna height limits.

(d)The following power and antenna height requirements apply to stations transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands:

(1)The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 2110-2155 MHz band and located in any county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is limited to:

(A)an equivalent isotropically radiated power

(EIRP)of 3280 watts when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;

(B)an EIRP of 3280 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.

(2)The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 2110-2155 MHz band and situated in any geographic location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1) is limited to:

(A)an equivalent isotropically radiated power

(EIRP)of 1640 watts when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less;

(B)an EIRP of 1640 watts/MHz when transmitting with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz.

(3)A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 2110-2155 MHz band utilizing a power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must coordinate such operations in advance with all Government and non-Government satellite entities in the 2025-2110 MHz band. Operations with power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must be coordinated in advance with the following licensees authorized to operate within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station operating in this band: all Broadband Radio Service

(BRS)licensees authorized under part 27 in the 2155-2160 MHz band and all advanced wireless services

(AWS)licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in the 2110-2155 MHz band.

(4)Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band are limited to 1 watt EIRP. Fixed stations operating in this band are limited to a maximum antenna height of 10 meters above ground. Mobile and portable stations operating in this band must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.

(5)Equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the provisions of § 24.51. Power measurements for transmissions by stations authorized under this section may be made either in accordance with a Commission-approved average power technique or in compliance with paragraph (d)(6) of this section. In measuring transmissions in this band using an average power technique, the peak-to-average ratio

(PAR)of the transmission may not exceed 13 dB.

(6)Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth, sensitivity, *etc.,* so as to obtain a true peak measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the channel. [FR Doc. E8-9752 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106673-8011-02] RIN 0648-XH62 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch by Vessels in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Trawl Limited Access Fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch by vessels participating in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands

(BSAI)trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2008 Pacific ocean perch allowable catch

(TAC)allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 29, 2008, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2008 Pacific ocean perch TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI is 214 metric tons

(mt)as established by the 2008 and 2009 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (73 FR 10160, February 26, 2008). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2008 Pacific ocean perch TAC allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and

(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific ocean perch by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of April 28, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.91 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: April 29, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1206 Filed 4-29-08; 12:41 pm]

Connectionstraces to 41

Traces to 41 documents