Unknown. Final rule
120,676 words·~549 min read·
/register/2008/05/08/08-1237A 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-2008-05-08.xml --- 72 90 Thursday, May 8, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Commodity Credit Corporation See Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26074 E8-10255 Alcohol Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau PROPOSED RULES Proposed Revision of Distilled Spirits Plant Regulations (2001R-194P), 26200-26307 E8-9095 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Availability of U.S.
Patent Concerning Assembled Hematin, 26085 E8-10287 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26118-26119 E8-10215 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zone: Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Monterey, Monterey, CA., 26019 E8-10276 Hatteras Boat Parade and Firework Display, Trent River, New Bern, NC, 26017-26019 E8-10272 Special Local Regulations:
Delaware River, Big Timber Creek, Westville, NJ, 26002-26004 E8-10227 Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA, 26005-26007 E8-10228 Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District, 26007-26017 E8-10229 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Regulations: Port of New York and Vicinity, 26054-26056 E8-10259 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26125-26128 E8-10265 E8-10267 E8-10268 Meetings: Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee, 26128 E8-10260 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26076-26077 E8-10226 Commodity Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES In-Handling Charges for Commodities Pledged As Collateral for Marketing Assistance Loan, 26074-26075 E8-10179 Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 26084-26085 08-1237 Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department Education Education Department PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act Regulations, 26056-26059 E8-10110 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Bossier Parish, Louisiana, Flood Risk Management Study, 26085 E8-10286 Cross Lake Water Supply Feasibility Study, Shreveport, LA, 26085-26086 E8-10264 Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, 26086 E8-10288 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans:
States of South Dakota and Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution, 26019-26025 E8-10103 National Priorities List, 26025-26026 E8-10316 PROPOSED RULES Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: States of South Dakota and Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution, 26059 E8-10100 NOTICES Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cashout Settlement: Elite Laundry Superfund Site; Jaffrey, NH, 26111-26112 E8-10310 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives:
Air Tractor, Inc. AT 400, AT 500, AT 600, and AT 800 Series Airplanes, 25967-25970 E8-9925 Boeing Model 737 100, et al. Series Airplanes, 25970-25974 E8-9922 Boeing Model 737-600, et al. Series Airplanes, 25986-25990 E8-9919 Boeing Model 747 100, 747 100B, 747 100B SUD, 747 200B, 747 200C, 747 200F, 747 300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes, 25977-25984 E8-9896 Boeing Model 747-200F, et al. Series Airplanes, 25997-25999 E8-9894 Boeing Model 747 400, 400D, and 400F Series Airplanes, 25990-25997 E8-9897 Boeing Model 757 Airplanes, 25974-25977 E8-9917 Dassault Model Mystere Falcon 50 Airplanes, 25984-25986 E8-9895 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
Model EMB 135 Airplanes and Model EMB 145, 145ER, 145MR, et al., 25962-25967 E8-9890 Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Model S-61A, S-61D, S 61E, and S-61V Helicopters, 25961-25962 E8-9787 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Rockport, ME, 25999 E8-9848 Swans Island, ME, 25999-26000 E8-9850 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 707 Airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes, 26043-26044 E8-10217 Bombardier Model CL 600 2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) Airplanes, Model CL 600 2D15, etc., 26045-26047 E8-10219 Modification of Class E Airspace:
Rome, NY, 26047-26048 E8-9852 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Fort Collins, CO, 26048-26049 E8-10191 Removal of Regulations Allowing for Polished Frost on Wings of Airplanes, 26049-26054 E8-10246 NOTICES Approval of Finding of No Significant Impact on a Short Form Environmental Assessment: Chicago/Rockford International Airport, Rockford, IL, 26185-26186 E8-9833 Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Chicago O’Hare International Airport for the Winter 2008/2009 Scheduling Season, 26186-26187 08-1226 Submission Deadlines Schedule Information for John F.
Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport for the Winter 2008/2009 Scheduling Season, 26187 08-1227 Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received, 26187-26188 E8-10237 E8-10251 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services, etc., 26032-26042 E8-10099 PROPOSED RULES Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the, etc., 26067-26071 E8-10105 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26112 E8-9974 Closed Auction of Licenses for Cellular Unserved Service Areas Scheduled for June 17, 2008, etc., 26112-26118 E8-10381 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations, 26026-26030 E8-10337 Final Flood Elevation Determinations, 26030-26032 E8-10336 PROPOSED RULES Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations, 26060-26067 E8-10335 NOTICES Emergency Declaration: Illinois, 26128-26129 E8-10332 Major Disaster Declaration:
Arizona, 26129 E8-10331 Arkansas, 26129 E8-10342 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26087-26088 E8-10197 Application Accepted for Filing: Blue Light Power, LLC, 26090-26091 E8-10199 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), 26092-26093 E8-10195 Application Accepted for Filing; Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions to Intervene: Eagle Crest Energy Co., 26094-26096 E8-10170 Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Co., LLC, 26093-26094 E8-10169 Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests:
Eagle Crest Energy Co., 26089-26090 E8-10129 Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC, 26088-26089 E8-10128 Application and Petition for Declaratory Order: Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 26096 E8-10203 Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene: KC LLC, 26096-26097 E8-10200 Combined Notice of Filings, 26097-26102 E8-10156 E8-10160 E8-10173 Complaint: Union Electric Co., 26102-26103 E8-10196 Dismissing Request for Hearing:
Twin Lakes Canal Co., 26103 E8-10198 Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: Leaf River Energy Center LLC, 26103-26104 E8-10172 Leaf River Storage Project, 26104-26105 E8-10131 Errata: Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, 26105-26106 E8-10130 E8-10171 Form No. 552 Follow-up Workshop, 26106 E8-10164 Issuance of Order: Endure Energy, L.L.C., 26107-26108 E8-10124 E8-10165 Mountain Wind Power, LLC, 26106, 26108-26109 E8-10125 E8-10166 Panda-Brandywine, L.L.P., 26106-26107, 26109 E8-10126 E8-10167 West Valley Leasing Co., LLC, 26107, 26109-26110 E8-10127 E8-10168 Meetings:
Form No. 552 Follow-Up Workshop, 26110 E8-10123 Applications: KC LLC, 26110-26111 E8-10201 Federal Housing Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 26136-26138 E8-10254 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered Wildlife and Plants; Permits, 26138-26139 E8-10233 Environmental Assessment: Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Ouachita Parish, LA, 26139-26140 E8-10344 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Soldotna, AK, 26140-26142 E8-10236 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26119 E8-10204 Meetings: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee, 26119-26120 E8-10307 Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 26120-26121 E8-10258 Science Board, 26121 E8-10257 Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposal for Available Alternative Site - Designation and - Management Framework, 26077-26078 E8-10274 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: San Juan National Forest, Columbine Ranger District, CO;
Hermosa Land Exchange Analysis, 26075-26076 E8-10223 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services See U.S. Customs and Border Protection Housing Housing and Urban Development Department See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26134-26136 E8-10181 E8-10333 E8-10334 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Land Acquisitions; Mechoopda Indian Tribe, California, 26142-26143 E8-10279 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations based upon a Systematic Review of the CCL; Correction, 26000-26001 E8-10309 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26188-26190 E8-10189 E8-10190 IRS/VA FFRDC Co-Sponsorship, 26190 E8-10188 Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, (as Required by Section 6039G), 26190-26192 E8-10193 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping Duty Orders: Polyethylene Terepthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea, 26078-26079 E8-10277 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India and Taiwan, 26079 E8-10266 Countervailing Duty Order:
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, 26080 E8-10273 Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 26080-26081 E8-10278 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations: Certain Power Supplies, 26144-26145 E8-10175 Raw Flexible Magnets from China and Taiwan, 26145-26146 E8-10177 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Lodging of Consent Decree, 26146-26147 E8-10241 Labor Labor Department NOTICES Ensuring Benefits in the Formal Sector in El Salvador, 26147 E8-10270 Strengthening Labor Law Compliance in the United Republic of Tanzania, 26147-26148 E8-10269 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native Claims Selection, 26143 E8-10224 Realty Action:
Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification of Public Lands in Fremont County, WY, 26143-26144 E8-10234 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: National Council on the Humanities, 26148 E8-10207 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Confidential Business Information, 26071-26073 E8-10192 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Director, 26121-26122 E8-9870 Center for Scientific Review, 26122-26124 E8-9865 National Eye Institute, 26124 E8-9864 National Institute on Aging, 26124-26125 E8-9868 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26082 E8-10225 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Scoping Process; Intent to Prepare An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 26082-26084 E8-10275 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits, 26084 E8-10176 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Naval Research Advisory Committee, 26086-26087 E8-10222 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity For Hearing Regarding Renewal of MIT Research Reactor No.
R-37, 26148-26150 E8-10283 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26150 E8-10249 Availability of the Final Interim Staff Guidance COL-ISG-02 on Financial Qualifications of Applicants, 26151 E8-10248 Issuance of License Amendment for Termination of License SNM-00007 Battelle Memorial Institute West Jefferson, Ohio, 26151-26152 E8-10281 Request for Certificate Renewal and Opportunity for Comment: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant; Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant;
United States Enrichment Corp., 26152-26153 E8-10284 Office Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight See Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Excepted Service, 26153-26154 E8-10221 Postal Postal Service NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 26155-26158 E8-10183 Presidential Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS *Special observances:* Military Spouse Day (Proc. 8252), 26309-26312 08-1240 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Proposed Rule Changes: Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 26159-26174 E8-10093 E8-10094 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 26174-26176 E8-10210 Depository Trust Company, 26181-26182 E8-10213 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 26176-26177 E8-10253 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 26177-26179, 26182-26185 E8-10211 E8-10212 NYSE Arca, Inc., 26179-26181 E8-10250 Social Social Security Administration RULES Testimony by Employees and the Production of Records and Information in Legal Proceedings;
Change, etc., 26001-26002 E8-10256 State State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: Home Delivery; Fabricating the Modern Dwelling, 26185 E8-10261 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Treasury Treasury Department See Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau See Internal Revenue Service See United States Mint U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 26129-26131 E8-10311 E8-10314 E8-10315 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Cancellation of Customs Broker License, 26131 E8-10319 Cancellation of Customs Broker License Due to Death of the License Holder, 26131-26132 E8-10318 Final Determination: Electric Mini-Trucks, 26132-26134 E8-10119 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES American Eagle Platinum Uncirculated Coin Price Increases, 26192 E8-10308 Meetings:
Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, 26192 E8-10290 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 26192-26197 E8-10230 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Treasury Department, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 26200-26307 E8-9095 Part III Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, 26309-26312 08-1240 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 90 Thursday, May 8, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0284; Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-06-AD; Amendment 39-15510; AD 2008-10-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives;
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-61A, S-61D, S-61E, and S-61V Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the specified Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) model helicopters that requires installing an electric chip detector on each engine and an on-board chip detector annunciation system. The AD also requires revising the Rotorcraft Flight Manual
(RFM)to add procedures for crew response to the illumination of an on-board chip detector warning light. This AD also requires testing the engine chip detector system at specified intervals. This amendment is prompted by reports of Number 5 engine bearing failures. Failure of the bearing resulted in erratic movement of the high-speed, engine-to-transmission shaft (shaft), an oil leak, an in-flight fire, and an emergency landing. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect an impending bearing failure, which if undetected and not addressed by appropriate crew action may result in an oil leak, a severed shaft housing, an uncontained in-flight fire, and a subsequent emergency landing. DATES: Effective June 12, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone
(203)383-4866, e-mail address *tsslibrary@sikorsky.com* . *Examining the Docket:* You may examine the docket that contains this AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or at the Docket Operations office, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone
(781)238-7190, fax
(781)238-7170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD for the specified model helicopters was published in the **Federal Register** on December 6, 2007 (72 FR 68766). That action proposed to require, within 60 days, installing an electric chip detector for the Number 5 bearing in both engines on the specified Sikorsky model helicopters with GE CT58 series engines. That action also proposed installing an on-board chip detector annunciation system and revising the Emergency Procedures section of the RFM to add procedures for crew response to the illumination of an on-board chip detector warning light. In addition, functional testing of the chip detector system at specified intervals was proposed. We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 61B30-15A, Revision A, dated October 20, 2003 (ASB). The Sikorsky ASB describes procedures for installing an engine chip detector system that will provide an “in-cockpit monitoring system” as a means to detect metallic chips if bearing deterioration occurs in either engine. We have also reviewed General Electric
(GE)Aircraft Engines CT58 Service Bulletin Number 72-0195, dated May 1, 2003 (SB). The GE SB describes procedures for installing an alternate electrical chip detector (either part number (P/N) 3018T72P01, cannon-type connector, or 3049T42P01, stud-type connector) to the power turbine accessory drive assembly. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the two comments made by one commenter about two typographical errors in the Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In paragraph
(a)of the NPRM, an engine chip detector is incorrectly shown as P/N 205T33P01 rather than P/N 2005T33P01. In paragraph (d), we referenced paragraph 3.F. of the Sikorsky ASB rather than 3.E. We concur with the commenter and have changed the engine chip detector P/N from 205T33P01 to 2005T33P01 and have changed the referenced Sikorsky ASB paragraph from 3.E. to 3.F. in this AD. After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, we determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. These changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. This AD will affect 7 helicopters of U.S. registry, and it will take about 81.5 work hours per helicopter to install the engine chip detector and the on-board cockpit annunciation system. The repetitive tests will affect about 7 helicopters and require 6 tests per year and 1 work hour per test for 10 years of operating service. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $1,940 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $92,820 for the entire fleet. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation. 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to 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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **2008-10-04 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation:** Amendment 39-15510. Docket No. FAA-2007-0284; Directorate Identifier 2004-SW-06-AD. Applicability Model S-61A, S-61D, S-61E, and S-61V helicopters with GE CT 58 series engines installed, certificated in any category. Compliance Required within 60 days, unless accomplished previously. To detect an impending Number 5 engine bearing (bearing) failure, which if undetected and not addressed by appropriate crew action may result in an oil leak, severed shaft housing, an uncontained in-flight fire, and a subsequent emergency landing, do the following:
(a)Remove engine chip detector, part number (P/N) 2005T33P01, and install engine chip detector, P/N 3049T42P01 or 3018T72P01, in the engine power turbine accessory drive assembly of each engine. Install the chip detector by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., of General Electric Aircraft Engines CT58 Service Bulletin Number 72-0195, dated May 1, 2003. Note: This AD neither requires installing GE CT58 engines nor replacing an engine power turbine accessory drive assembly that has a 5/16 inch magnetic plug port and applies only to Sikorsky Model S-61A, S-61D, S-61E, and S-61V helicopters with GE CT58 series engines installed.
(b)Install an on-board engine chip detector annunciation system by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B. or 3.C., as appropriate for the different manufacturers of the master warning caution panel, of the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 61B30-15A, Revision A, dated October 20, 2003 (Sikorsky ASB).
(c)After doing paragraph
(b)of this AD, before further flight, perform a functional test of the engine chip detector system. Repeat the test at intervals not to exceed 150 hours time-in-service. Conduct the tests following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D., of the Sikorsky ASB.
(d)Insert the emergency procedures contained in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.F., of the Sikorsky ASB for an on-board engine chip detector warning indicator light into the Emergency Procedures section of the applicable Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
(e)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Kirk Gustafson, Aviation Safety Engineer, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone
(781)238-7190, fax
(781)238-7170, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(f)Installing an engine chip detector shall be done by following the specified portions of General Electric Aircraft Engines CT58 Service Bulletin Number 72-0195, dated May 1, 2003. Installing an on-board engine chip detector annunciation system and performing a functional test of the engine chip detector system shall be done by following the specified portions of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 61B30-15A, Revision A, dated October 20, 2003. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone
(203)383-4866, e-mail address *tsslibrary@sikorsky.com* . Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas, 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* .
(g)This amendment becomes effective on June 12, 2008. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 23, 2008. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9787 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0516; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-026-AD; Amendment 39-15514; AD 2008-10-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The existing AD currently requires performing repetitive inspections for cracks, ruptures, or bends in certain components of the elevator control system; replacing discrepant components; and, for certain airplanes, installing a new spring cartridge and implementing new logic for the electromechanical gust lock system. The existing AD also requires eventual modification of the elevator gust lock system to replace the mechanical system with an electromechanical system, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This AD reduces the compliance time for doing the modification. This AD results from additional reports of failure of the mechanical gust lock system to protect the elevator control surfaces and components from high wind gusts. We are issuing this AD to prevent discrepancies in the elevator control system, which could result in reduced control of the elevator and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective May 23, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 23, 2008. On February 3, 2006 (70 FR 77303, December 30, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD. We must receive any comments on this AD by June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343, CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On December 13, 2005, we issued AD 2005-26-15, amendment 39-14436 (70 FR 77303, December 30, 2005), for certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That AD requires performing repetitive inspections for cracks, ruptures, or bends in certain components of the elevator control system; replacing discrepant components; and, for certain airplanes, installing a new spring cartridge and implementing new logic for the electromechanical gust lock system. That AD also requires eventual modification of the elevator gust lock system to replace the mechanical system with an electromechanical system, which terminates the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from reports that cracks were found in certain components of the elevator control system in the horizontal stabilizer area of several airplanes equipped with a mechanical gust lock system. Those cracks were attributed to damage from strong wind gusts on the ground. We issued that AD to prevent discrepancies in the elevator control system, which could result in reduced control of the elevator and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since AD 2005-26-15 Was Issued After we issued AD 2005-26-15, we received a report indicating that a Model EMB-145 airplane did not rotate in response to the command from the yoke during take-off, which resulted in a rejected take-off. The airplane was one of a small percentage of remaining airplanes in the U.S. fleet for which the mechanical elevator gust lock system had yet to be modified to an electromechanical elevator gust lock system, as required by AD 2005-26-15. The compliance time specified in AD 2005-26-15 for accomplishment of the modification time is within 10,000 flight hours or 60 months after February 3, 2006 (the effective date of that AD), whichever is first. In light of the report described previously, we determined that the repetitive inspections in AD 2005-26-15 were inadequate to ensure long-term continued operational safety. Consequently, on January 18, 2008, we issued AD 2008-03-03, amendment 39-15352 (73 FR 5426, January 30, 2008), for certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That AD requires additional (interim) inspections to detect discrepancies of the components of the elevator control system, repetitive movements of the control column to observe the normal response of the elevators, repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the skin of the elevators, and applicable related investigative actions and corrective actions. AD 2008-03-03 also provides for an optional terminating action for the inspections and measurements; that optional terminating action is the same terminating action that is required by AD 2005-26-15. In addition, AD 2008-03-03 requires that operators submit reports of any findings of damage or discrepancies found during any inspection required by the AD. As we explained in the preamble to AD 2008-03-03, we were considering superseding AD 2005-26-15 to reduce the compliance time for that modification based on the results of those inspections. Since we issued AD 2008-03-03, we have received additional reports of in-service failures of the mechanical gust lock system to protect the control surfaces and components of the elevator control system from high wind gusts and jet blasts. Rapid uncommanded movement of the elevator control surface induces inertia loads in the elevator control system, which may result in systematic damage that could ultimately cause failure of the elevator control system and consequent reduced control of the airplane. FAA's Conclusion Based on these additional reports, and in light of the severity of the identified unsafe condition, we have determined that in order to further reduce the risk of potential damage of the elevator control system components, the terminating modification required by AD 2005-26-15 must be done sooner than the compliance time specified in that AD. Accomplishment of the modification, as required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, terminates the requirements of AD 2008-03-03, as well as the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 09, dated November 8, 2006; and Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Revision 05, dated November 8, 2006. The procedures in these service bulletins are essentially the same as those in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 06, dated July 16, 2002; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 01, dated July 3, 2002; which we referred to in the proposed rules to AD 2005-26-15 as the appropriate sources of service information for doing the required modification. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Differences Between the AD and the Service Information Operators should note that this AD does not mandate installing new electrical grounding for the gust lock system actuator at the horizontal stabilizer structure, as provided in the new revisions of the service bulletins described previously. Explanation of Brazilian Airworthiness Directive The Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the former airworthiness authority for Brazil, mandated EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 06, and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 01, and further revisions approved by the DAC, by issuing Brazilian airworthiness directive 2002-01-01R3, effective November 8, 2002. The DAC issued that airworthiness directive to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. We referred to Brazilian airworthiness directive 2002-01-01R3, effective November 8, 2002, in AD 2005-26-15 as a related source of information. Since we issued AD 2005-26-15, the Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil
(ANAC)has assumed responsibility for the airplane models subject to this AD. While it has not issued a new airworthiness directive related to this issue, we have coordinated the requirements of this AD with ANAC. U.S. Type Certification of the Airplane These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Change to Existing AD This AD retains the requirements of AD 2005-26-15. Since AD 2005-26-15 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2005-26-15 Corresponding requirement in this AD Paragraph
(a)Paragraph (f). Paragraph
(b)Paragraph (g). Paragraph
(c)Paragraph (h). Paragraph
(d)Paragraph (i). Paragraph (c)(2)(i) of AD 2005-26-15 (paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this AD) specifies making repairs using a method approved by either the FAA or the DAC (or its delegated agent). As we previously explained, the ANAC has assumed responsibility for the airplane model[s] subject to this AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this AD to specify making repairs using a method approved by the FAA, the DAC (or its delegated agent), or the ANAC (or its delegated agent). FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date Based on the service reports since the release of AD 2005-26-15, we have determined that a shorter compliance time for the terminating action is necessary to address the unsafe condition and to ensure long-term continued operational safety in this case to detect any discrepancy before it represents a hazard to the airplane. Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft, and thus the critical need to ensure the proper functioning of the elevator control system and the short compliance time involved with this action, this AD must be issued immediately. Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less that 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0516; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-026-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14436 (70 FR 77303, December 30, 2005) and adding the following new AD: **2008-10-08 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0516; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-026-AD; Amendment 39-15514. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective May 23, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-26-15. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 145001 through 145189 inclusive, 145191 through 145362 inclusive, 145364 through 145373 inclusive, 145375, 145377 through 145411 inclusive, 145413 through 145424 inclusive, 145426 through 145430 inclusive, 145434 through 145436 inclusive, 145440 through 145445 inclusive, 145448, 145450, and 145801; equipped with a mechanical gust lock system. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from additional reports of failure of the mechanical gust lock system to protect the elevator control surfaces and components from high wind gusts. We are issuing this AD to prevent discrepancies in the elevator control system, which could result in reduced control of the elevator and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2005-26-15 With Certain Revised Compliance Times/Requirements Repetitive Inspections
(f)Within 800 flight hours after February 3, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2005-26-15), do a detailed inspection of the elevator control system for any crack, rupture, or bend in any component, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0087, Change 03, dated September 27, 2002. Where this service bulletin specifies to return discrepant parts and report inspection results to the manufacturer, this AD does not require these actions. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours or 15 months, whichever is first. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” Replacement of Discrepant Parts
(g)If any discrepant part is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, before further flight, replace the discrepant part with a new part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0087, Change 03, dated September 27, 2002. Modification
(h)At the applicable time specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD: Modify the elevator gust lock by accomplishing paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishment of the modification terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph
(f)of this AD. Doing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, also terminates the requirements of AD 2008-03-03, amendment 39-15352. This AD does not mandate installing new electrical grounding for the gust lock system actuator at the horizontal stabilizer structure in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 09, dated November 8, 2006; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Revision 05, dated November 8, 2006.
(1)For airplanes listed in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08, dated March 3, 2005: Do paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable, and install a new spring cartridge and implement new logic for the electromechanical gust lock system by doing all actions in section 3.D. (Part IV) of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08, dated March 3, 2005; or Revision 09, dated November 8, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 09 of the service bulletin must be used. After accomplishing the actions in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0101, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08 or Revision 09; the airplane flight manual
(AFM)revision required by AD 2002-26-51, amendment 39-13008, may be removed from the Limitations section of the EMBRAER EMB-145 AFM. Accomplishing the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0102, as specified by EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08 or Revision 09, terminates the repetitive inspections required by AD 2005-24-11, amendment 39-14391.
(i)Replace the mechanical gust lock system with an electromechanical gust lock system, and replace the control stand with a reworked control stand, by doing all the actions (including a detailed inspection to ensure that certain parts have been removed previously per EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0076) in and per section 3.A. (Part I) or 3.B. (Part II), as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08 or Revision 09. If the inspection reveals that certain subject parts have not been removed previously, before further flight, remove the subject parts in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08 or Revision 09. Where Parts I and II of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08 or Revision 09, specify to remove and “send the control stand to be reworked in a workshop,” replace the control stand with a control stand reworked as specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08 or Revision 09. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 09 of the service bulletin must be used for the actions required by this paragraph.
(ii)Replace the return spring and spring terminal of the gust lock control lever with improved parts by doing all the actions in and per section 3.C. (Part III) of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 08 or Revision 09. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 09 of the service bulletin must be used. Note 2: Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145-27-0075, Revision 08 and Revision 09, refers to EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0101, Revision 02, dated December 27, 2004; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0102, Revision 02, dated January 20, 2005; as additional sources of instructions for accomplishing the installation of a new spring cartridge and implementation of the new logic for the electromechanical gust lock system.
(2)For airplanes listed in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04, dated March 21, 2005: Do paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), (h)(2)(iii), and (h)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.
(i)Rework the tail carbon box and the horizontal stabilizer by doing all the actions (including the inspection for delamination) in and per section 3.A. (Part I) of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04; or Revision 05, dated November 8, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 05 of the service bulletin must be used. If any delamination is found that is outside the limits specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 or Revision 05, before further flight, repair per a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the Departmento de Aviacao Civil (or its delegated agent); or the Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (or its delegated agent).
(ii)Install wiring and electrical components by doing all the actions in and per section 3.B. (Part II) of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 or Revision 05. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 05 of the service bulletin must be used.
(iii)Install and activate the electromechanical gust lock system by doing all the actions in section 3.D. (Part IV) of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 or Revision 05. Where Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 or Revision 05, specifies to remove and “send the control stand to be reworked in a workshop,” replace the control stand with a control stand reworked as specified in Part III of the service bulletin. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 05 of the service bulletin must be used.
(iv)Install a new spring cartridge and implement new logic for the electromechanical gust lock system by doing all applicable actions in section 3.E. (Part V) of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 or Revision 05. After the effective date of this AD, Revision 05 of the service bulletin must be used. After accomplishing the actions in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0101; as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 or Revision 05; the AFM revision required by AD 2002-26-51, amendment 39-13008, may be removed from the Limitations section of the EMBRAER EMB-145 AFM. Accomplishing the actions in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0102; as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 or Revision 05; terminates the repetitive inspections required by AD 2005-24-11, amendment 39-14391. Note 3: Part V of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 04 and Revision 05, refers to EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0101, Revision 02, dated December 27, 2004; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0102, Revision 02, dated January 20, 2005; as additional sources of instructions for accomplishing the installation of a new spring cartridge and implementation of the new logic for the electromechanical gust lock system. Actions Accomplished Previously
(i)Actions accomplished before February 3, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD, as specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD.
(1)Modification of the elevator gust lock system before February 3, 2006, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Change 06, dated July 16, 2002, is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, provided that, within the compliance time specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD, a new spring cartridge is installed and new logic for the electromechanical gust lock system is implemented in accordance with Part IV of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2004, or Revision 08, dated March 3, 2005.
(2)Modification of the elevator gust lock system before February 3, 2006, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0075, Revision 07, dated March 2, 2004, is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
(3)Modification of the elevator gust lock system before February 3, 2006, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 02, dated December 23, 2003; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0086, Change 03, dated April 14, 2004; is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Reduced Compliance Time for Required Modification
(j)For airplanes on which the modification of the elevator gust lock system specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1)Within 10,000 flight hours after February 3, 2006, or within 60 months after February 3, 2006, whichever occurs first.
(2)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, or 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Related Information
(l)None. Material Incorporated by Reference
(m)You must use the service information identified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, as applicable, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 1.—All Material Incorporated by Reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision/change level Date 145-27-0075 Revision 08 March 3, 2005. 145-27-0075 Revision 09 November 8, 2006. 145-27-0086 Change 04 March 21, 2005. 145-27-0086 Revision 05 November 8, 2006. 145-27-0087 Change 03 September 27, 2002.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information identified in Table 2 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Table 2.—New Material Incorporated by Reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision/change level Date 145-27-0075 Revision 09 November 8, 2006. 145-27-0086 Revision 05 November 8, 2006.
(2)On February 3, 2006 (70 FR 77303, December 30, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information identified in Table 3 of this AD. Table 3.—Material Previously Incorporated by Reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision/change level Date 145-27-0075 Revision 08 March 3, 2005. 145-27-0086 Change 04 March 21, 2005. 145-27-0087 Change 03 September 27, 2002.
(3)Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343, CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 23, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9890 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-090-AD; Amendment 39-15518; AD 2008-10-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. AT-400, AT-500, AT-600, and AT-800 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)to supersede AD 2007-13-17, which applies to certain Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes. AD 2007-13-17 currently requires you to repetitively inspect the engine mount for any cracks, repair or replace any cracked engine mount, and report any cracks found to the FAA. Since we issued AD 2007-13-17, Air Tractor has learned of a Model AT-502B with a crack located where the lower engine mount tube is welded to the engine mount ring. In addition, Air Tractor has developed gussets that, when installed according to their service letter, terminate the repetitive inspection requirement. Consequently, this AD would retain the inspection actions of AD 2007-13-17 for Model AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes, including the compliance times and effective dates; establish new inspection actions for the AT-400 and AT-500 series airplanes; incorporate a mandatory terminating action for all airplanes; and terminate the reporting requirement of AD 2007-13-17. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the engine mount, which could result in failure of the engine mount. Such failure could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective on June 12, 2008. On June 12, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008; Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007; and Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007, as listed in this AD. As of August 10, 2007 (72 FR 36863, July 6, 2007), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, revised January 22, 2007, as listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:
(940)564-5616; fax:
(940)564-5612. 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-2007-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-090-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, 10100 Reunion Pl., Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; fax:
(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On November 23, 2007, 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 all Air Tractor AT-400, AT-500, AT-600, and AT-800 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)on November 30, 2007 (72 FR 67687). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2007-13-17 with a new AD that would retain the inspection actions of AD 2007-13-17 for Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes, including the compliance times and effective dates; establish new inspection actions for the AT-400 and AT-500 series airplanes; incorporate a mandatory terminating action for all airplanes; and terminate the reporting requirement of AD 2007-13-17. That proposed AD would have required you to use Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007. Air Tractor revised the Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 to the Rev. B level (dated November 30, 2007), and: • The FAA determined the actions in the revised service letter were necessary and needed to be incorporated into the proposed AD; and • Because incorporating the revision increased the burden upon the public over that proposed in the NPRM, the FAA issued a supplemental NPRM to give the public an additional opportunity to comment. The supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 14, 2007 (72 FR 71086). Comments The following presents the comment received on the proposal and FAA's response to that comment: Comment Issue: Delay the Terminating Action Mr. Leland Snow, President of Air Tractor, and five other commenters recommend some kind of delay in mandating the terminating action in the proposed AD. Mr. Snow and one other commenter believe that the compliance time to install welded gussets on the engine mounts can be adjusted from before the airplane reaches 5,000 total hours time-in-service
(TIS)to before the airplane reaches 8,000 hours total TIS. In order to get through the current spray season, three commenters believe the compliance time should be delayed 12 months or when the engine is removed. The other commenter recommends shorter interval repetitive inspections with no mandatory terminating action. The FAA partially agrees. Our review of the current service history does not support allowing the installation of welded gussets to be extended from before the airplane reaches 5,000 total hours TIS to before the airplane reaches 8,000 hours total TIS. We have received no additional data to substantiate the airworthiness aspects of such an extension and show that the unsafe condition is addressed. After further evaluation of the service history and the risk involved, we have determined that terminating action can be delayed until the beginning of the 2009 spray season (May 1, 2009) provided 100-hour TIS repetitive inspections are done and no cracks are found. Therefore, we are changing the final rule AD action to allow for the option of delaying the terminating action until April 30, 2009, with the provisions described above. In addition, Air Tractor has revised Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 to the Revision C level (dated April 17, 2008). This revision incorporates new gusset part numbers for the AT-400 and AT-500 series airplanes. The gusset part numbers provided in Revision B or Revision C of the service letter address the unsafe condition. We will incorporate this service letter revision into the final rule. 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 and addition described above and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that the change, addition, and minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM or supplemental NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM or supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 1,264 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 1.5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $120 $0 $120 $151,680 We estimate the following costs to do the repair/modification: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 24 work-hours × $80 per hour = $1,920 $80 $2,000 $2,528,000 The estimated total cost on U.S. operators includes the cumulative costs associated with AD 2007-13-17 and those airplanes and actions being added in 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 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-2007-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-090-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. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD)2007-13-17, Amendment 39-15121 (72 FR 36863, July 6, 2007), and adding the following new AD: **2008-10-12 Air Tractor, Inc.:** Amendment 39-15518; Docket No. FAA-2007-0258; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-090-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective on June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2007-13-17, Amendment 39-15121. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models Serial Nos. AT-400, AT-400A, AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B -0001 through -1175. AT-502, AT-502A, AT-502B, and AT-503A -0001 through -2597. AT-602 -0001 through -1141. AT-802 and AT-802A -0001 through -0227. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a Model AT-502B airplane with a crack located where the lower engine mount tube is welded to the engine mount ring. The airplane had 8,436 total hours time-in-service (TIS). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the engine mount, which could result in failure of the engine mount. Such failure could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done:
(1)*For all airplanes with less than 5,000 hours total TIS that do not have gussets installed on the engine mount in accordance with Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007; Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007; or Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008* : Visually inspect the engine mount as follows: Affected airplanes Compliance Procedures
(i)*For all Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes* Initially before the airplane reaches a total of 1,300 hours TIS or within the next 100 hours TIS after August 10, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-13-17), whichever occurs later. Repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS. Follow one of the following:
(A)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008;
(B)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007;
(C)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007; or
(D)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, revised January 22, 2007.
(ii)*For all Model AT-502A airplanes* Initially before the airplane reaches a total of 1,300 hours TIS or within the next 100 hours TIS after June 12, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later. Repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS. Follow one of the following:
(A)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008; or
(B)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007.
(iii)*For all Models AT-400, AT-400A, AT-402, AT-402A, AT-402B, AT-502, AT-502B, and AT-503A airplanes* Initially within the next 12 months after June 12, 2008 (the effective date of this AD). Repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months. Follow one of the following:
(A)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008; or
(B)Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007.
(2)*For all airplanes* : Before further flight after any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where crack damage is found, repair and modify the engine mount by installing gussets following Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008; or Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007. This modification terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(3)*For all airplanes* : Unless already done (mandated by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD when crack damage was found) inspect, repair if cracked, and modify the engine mount by installing gussets following Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008; or Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007, at whichever of the following compliance times that occurs later. This modification terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i)Before the airplane reaches 5,000 hours total TIS; or
(ii)Within the next 100 hours TIS after June 12, 2008 (the effective date of this AD).
(4)*For all airplanes* : You may delay the modification specified in paragraph (e)(3) above until April 30, 2009, provided you do the following in accordance with the service information provided in the Procedures column of the table presented in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD:
(i)Initially inspect upon reaching the applicable time in paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (e)(3)(ii) of this AD, unless already done within the last 100 hours TIS;
(ii)Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS; and
(iii)If cracks are found during any inspection, before further flight, repair the cracked part and install the gussets. Note: As a terminating action to the repetitive inspections required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), and (e)(1)(iii) of this AD, you may install the gussets before finding cracks or reaching the times specified above provided you inspect to assure the area is crack free before installing the gussets. 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, ASW-150, FAA San Antonio MIDO-43, 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:
(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 Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008; Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007; Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007; or Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, revised January 22, 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 Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. C, dated April 17, 2008; Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, Rev. B, dated November 30, 2007; and Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253 Rev. A, dated October 16, 2007, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)On August 10, 2007 (72 FR 36863, July 6, 2007), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, revised January 22, 2007.
(3)For service information identified in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:
(940)564-5616; fax:
(940)564-5612.
(4)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 30, 2008. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9925 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28383; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-180-AD; Amendment 39-15515; AD 2008-10-09] 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 revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires the initial inspection of a certain repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank system. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12, 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: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6438; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion 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 July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36907). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the initial inspection of a certain repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Revision March 2008 of the 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR (hereafter referred to as “Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR”). The NPRM referred to Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, among other actions, includes the following changes: • Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight cycles from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 and No. 28-AWL-03. • Revises the task description for AWL No. 28-AWL-01 to harmonize it with AWL No. 28-AWL-02 by removing references to certain station numbers. • Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system
(FQIS)wire bundle installations. Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h)of this AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. We also have added a new paragraph
(j)to this AD specifying that actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions May 2006 through November 2007 of Document D6-38278-CMR are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. We also have removed reference to 36,000 total flight hours from paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and revised the initial threshold for accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Operators should note that paragraph
(g)of this AD requires only incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, and AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-19 inclusive for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Revision September 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR added AWL inspections of the fuel boost pump auto shutoff system for the center and auxiliary fuel tanks (specified as AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 and No. 28-AWL-21 for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, and AWLs No. 28- AWL-21 and No. 28-AWL-22 for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes). Revision November 2007 of Document D6-38278-CMR added an AWL inspection of the boost pump ground fault interrupter (specified as AWL No. 28-AWL-22 for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, and AWL No. 28-AWL-23 for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes). We might issue additional rulemaking to require the incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an optional action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Other Changes Made to This AD For standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the following ways: • We have added a new paragraph
(i)to this AD to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless they are part of a later approved revision of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the original type certificate. • We have revised Note 1 of this AD to clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the required inspections. • We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to specify that accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that paragraph. • We have deleted Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 from this AD, since Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR already contains most of the updated information that is listed in those appendices of the NPRM. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the five commenters. Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 Boeing, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), and Lufthansa state that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 specified in Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR are going to be revised, since those values are relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state that the revised values will be more representative of the expected values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h)of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in accordance with a later revision of the CMR if the revision is approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly. Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections KLM, on behalf of several operators, requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain airworthiness limitation item
(ALI)intervals with the applicable maintenance significant item
(MSI)and enhanced zonal analysis procedure
(EZAP)intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among other changes, the proposal recommends extending certain AWL inspection intervals from 10 years/36,000 flight cycles to 12 years for Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Lufthansa and the Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, both note an inconsistency between the inspection interval specified in Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR and the compliance threshold specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM. The NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial inspection within 36,000 total flight hours or 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first. However, Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR specifies a repetitive interval of 36,000 total flight cycles or 120 months, whichever occurs first. U.S. Airways requests we verify whether the initial inspection interval should be in units of flight cycles or flight hours. We disagree with KLM's request to extend certain AWL inspection intervals to 12 years. However, as stated previously, we have deleted the 36,000-total-flight-hour parameter from paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to correspond with the task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as specified in Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. However, according to the provisions of paragraph
(k)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 Revise Note 1 Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 of the NPRM to clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC to the required AWLs might be required if an operator has previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 as follows: • Add the words “according to paragraph (g)” at the end of the first sentence. • Replace the words “revision to” with “deviation from” in the last sentence. • Delete the words “(g) or” and “as applicable” from the last sentence. As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 1 of this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note. Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 KLM expects to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The commenter states that if it does the check and does not reach the specified values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be necessary. The commenter also states that it would be helpful to plan to do this inspection during an overhaul. We infer that KLM requests that we extend the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in paragraph
(h)of this AD to allow accomplishing the initial inspection during a regularly scheduled “D” check (about 6 years). We disagree with extending the grace period to 6 years. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, the rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In consideration of these items, we have determined that an initial compliance time of 120 months (as discussed previously) with a grace period of 24 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard. Request To Add Applicability to Paragraph
(g)Lufthansa states that the applicability of the AWL tasks should be included in the AWL table of the AD. We infer the commenter requests that we include the applicability for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in paragraph
(g)of this AD. (The commenter made the same request for a similar NPRM, which contained an “AWL table.”) We agree to add the airplane applicability to paragraph
(g)of this AD because AWL No. 28-AWL-03 only applies to airplanes on which certain design changes have been incorporated. We have revised paragraph
(g)of this AD accordingly. Request To Clarify Need for AMOCs The ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, requests that we clarify whether operators must obtain AMOCs for AWLs that are not applicable to their airplanes. U.S. Airways also requests that we clarify that some of the items identified in Appendix 2 of the NPRM might not be applicable to all Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. U.S. Airways states that it will not be able to comply with certain AWL inspections or CDCCLs because it has not incorporated the relevant service bulletins identified in Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR on several of its airplanes. Document D6-38278-CMR contains an applicability column that identifies the airplane configuration to which the AWL applies. The AWL is required only for those airplanes that have that configuration. If the applicability column identifies a service bulletin, then the operator would not need to adhere to the AWL until the airplane is modified in accordance with that service bulletin. There is no need to obtain an AMOC for airplanes that have not been modified. We agree that some of the items identified in Appendix 2 of the NPRM might not be applicable to all Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. However, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard, since we have deleted Appendix 2 from this AD. Request To Clarify if Latest Revision of Document D6-38278-CMR is Required The ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, requests that we clarify whether the latest revision of Document D6-38278-CMR will be incorporated into the final rule. The commenters note that Boeing has published a later revision of Document D6-38278-CMR than the one referenced in the NPRM. We have revised this AD to refer to the latest revision of Document D6-38278-CMR because paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD allow the use of later approved revisions of that document. That document has been revised since then to include additional AWLs associated with the incorporation of certain design changes. As stated previously, we might require those design changes and associated AWLs with separate rulemaking actions, but operators may choose to incorporate the new AWLs before then. Request To Clarify Revision Date of Document D6-38278-CMR The ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, notes that the “Changes to Fuel Tank System AWLs” and “Exceptional Short-Term Extensions” sections of the NPRM refer to Revision March 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR. U.S. Airways believes that the correct revision date should be May 2006 to match the rest of the NPRM. We infer the commenters request that we change the revision date to May 2006. We agree that the NPRM should have referred to Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR because that revision, and other later approved revisions, are the subject of this AD. Revision March 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR was originally included in the NPRM because the AWLs for fuel tank systems were first incorporated in that document. However, we have not changed this AD since the paragraphs that the commenters refer to are not retained in the final rule. 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 2,337 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Maintenance program revision 8 None $640 672 $430,080 Inspection 8 None 640 672 430,080 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: **2008-10-09 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15515. Docket No. FAA-2007-28383; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-180-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 12, 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. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)according to paragraph
(k)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information Reference
(f)The term “Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR,” as used in this AD, means Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March 2008. Maintenance Program Revision
(g)Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate the information specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable; except that the initial inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD must be done at the applicable compliance time specified in that paragraph. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of Document D6-38278-CMR is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1)For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes: Section C, “FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” including AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-21 through No. 28-AWL-23 inclusive, as identified in Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, also may be incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance program.
(2)For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: Section C, “FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” including AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-19 inclusive, Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 through No. 28-AWL-22 inclusive, as identified in Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, also may be incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance program. Initial Inspection and Repair if Necessary
(h)For the airplanes identified in the “Applicability” column of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR: At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indication system
(FQIS)wiring to verify functional integrity, in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. If any discrepancy is found during the inspection, repair the discrepancy before further flight in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance with a later revision of Document D6-38278-CMR is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.”
(1)Within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certification or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
(2)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(i)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the Service Information
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2006; Revision September 2006; or Revision November 2007; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(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.
(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
(l)You must use Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March 2008, 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 29, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9922 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26710; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-147-AD; Amendment 39-15517; AD 2008-10-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of June 12, 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: Judy Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6497; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41963). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require the initial inspection of certain repetitive inspections specified in the AWLs to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to revise the original NPRM by aligning the compliance time for revising the AWLs section with the compliance date of the special maintenance program requirements, updating the listing of applicable airplane maintenance manuals in Appendix 1, and clarifying certain actions. Actions Since Supplemental NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the supplemental NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary Revision
(TR)09-008, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-008 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Document
(MPD)Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred to as “Revision March 2008 of the MPD”). The supplemental NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision March 2008 of the MPD, among other actions, includes the following changes: • Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight cycles from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-14. • Revises the task description for AWL No. 28-AWL-01 to harmonize it with AWL No. 28-AWL-02 by removing references to certain station numbers. • Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system
(FQIS)wire bundle installations. Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h)of this AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of the MPD. We also have added a new paragraph
(j)to this AD specifying that actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006 through November 2007 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. We also have removed reference to 36,000 total flight cycles from Table 1 of this AD and revised the initial threshold for accomplishing AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-14 to within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Operators should note that we have revised paragraph
(g)of this AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-24 inclusive. AWL No. 28-AWL-25 was added in Revision October 2006 of the MPD, and AWL No. 28-AWL-26 was added in Revision January 2007 of the MPD. However, as an optional action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. We have issued a separate NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2007-28598) that, in part, proposes to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 and No. 28-AWL-26 into the AWLs section of the ICA. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37132). We have also issued AD 2008-06-03, amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008) that, in part, requires revising the AWLs section of the ICA to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph
(k)to this AD specifying that incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(2) of AD 2008-06-03. Other Changes Made to This AD We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to clarify that the actions identified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance time specified in that table. Also, for standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the following ways: • We have added a new paragraph
(i)to this AD to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless they are part of a later approved revision of Revision March 2008 of the MPD, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the original type certificate. • We have revised Note 1 of this AD to clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot accomplish the proposed inspections because an airplane has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the proposed inspections. • We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to specify that accomplishing the applicable AWLs in Table 1 of this AD as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that paragraph. • We have deleted Appendix 1 from this AD, since Revision March 2008 of the MPD already contains most of the updated information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Extend the Task Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, on behalf of several operators, requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain airworthiness limitation item
(ALI)intervals with the applicable maintenance significant item
(MSI)and enhanced zonal analysis procedure
(EZAP)intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among other changes, the proposal recommends extending certain AWL inspection intervals from 10 years/36,000 flight cycles to 12 years for Model 757 airplanes. We disagree with KLM's request to extend certain AWL inspection intervals to 12 years. However, as stated previously, we have deleted the 36,000-total-flight-cycle parameter from Table 1 of this AD to correspond with the task intervals specified in Revision March 2008 of the MPD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. 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 Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 Boeing states that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD are going to be revised, since those values are relevant for production airplanes. Boeing also states that the revised values will be more representative of the expected values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h)of the supplemental NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in accordance with a later revision of the MPD if the revision is approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly. Request To Revise Note 1 Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 of the supplemental NPRM to clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC to the required MPD AWLs might be required if an operator has previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 as follows: • Add the words “according to paragraph (g)” at the end of the first sentence. • Replace the words “revision to” with “deviation from” in the last sentence. • Delete the words “(g) or” and “as applicable” from the last sentence. As stated previously, we have simplified the language in Note 1 of this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note. Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 990 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost AWLs revision 8 $640 639 $408,960 Inspections 8 640 639 408,960 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-10-11 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15517. Docket No. FAA-2006-26710; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-147-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)according to paragraph
(l)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information
(f)The term “Revision March 2008 of the MPD” as used in this AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision
(TR)09-008, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-008 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Document
(MPD)Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2008. Revision of Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)Section
(g)Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)by incorporating the information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD into the MPD; except that the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance times specified in Table 1. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1)Subsection E, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
(2)Subsection F, “PAGE FORMAT: SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
(3)Subsection G, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-24 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-25 and No. 28-AWL-26, as identified in Subsection G of Revision March 2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated into the AWLs section of the ICA. Initial Inspections and Repair
(h)Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with Section G of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. The repair must be done before further flight. Accomplishing the actions in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the inspections identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Table 1.—Initial Inspections AWL No. Description Compliance time (whichever occurs later) Threshold Grace period
(1)28-AWL-01 A detailed inspection of external wires over the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, wire chafing, and wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel tank Within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2)28-AWL-03 A special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indicating system to verify functional integrity Within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3)28-AWL-14 A special detailed inspection of the fault current bond of the fueling shutoff valve actuator of the center wing tank to verify electrical bond Within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(i)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of “Revision March 2008 of the MPD” that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2006; Revision October 2006; Revision January 2007; or Revision November 2007; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Terminating Action for AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415
(k)Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 into the AWLs section of the ICA in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(2) of AD 2008-06-03. 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.
(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
(m)You must use Boeing Temporary Revision
(TR)09-008, dated March 2008, to the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Document
(MPD)Document, D622N001-9, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing TR 09-008 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Document
(MPD)Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2008.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information.
(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 29, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9917 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28385; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-181-AD; Amendment 39-15513; AD 2008-10-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12, 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: Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6501; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36380). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued the Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred to as “Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR”). (For the purposes of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR, the Model 747SR series airplane is basically a Model 747-100 series airplane with certain modifications to improve fatigue life.) The NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR includes the following changes: • Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight hours from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-13. • Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system
(FQIS)wire bundle installations, and removes the joint resistance values. • Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-06 to correct the numerical value given in milliohms for the bonding measurement. We have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h)of this AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR. We also have removed reference to 36,000 total flight cycles from Table 1 of this AD and revised the initial threshold for accomplishing AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-13 to within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. (The NPRM incorrectly specified 36,000 total “flight cycles” instead of “flight hours.”) We also have added a new paragraph
(j)to this AD specifying that actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006 through January 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Operators should note that we have revised paragraph
(g)of this AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-19 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-20, No. 28-AWL-21, and No. 28-AWL-22 were added in Revision January 2007 of Document D6-13747-CMR, and AWL No. 28-AWL-23 was added in Revision September 2007 of Document D6-13747-CMR. We issued a separate NPRM that proposes to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-20 into the FAA-approved maintenance program. That NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2008-0091) was published in the **Federal Register** on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5770). We also issued a separate NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2008-0090) that proposes to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21 into the FAA-approved maintenance program. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5773). We might issue additional rulemaking to require the incorporation of AWLs No. 28-AWL-22 and No. 28-AWL-23. However, as an optional action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Other Changes Made to This AD We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to clarify that the actions identified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance time specified in that table. Also, for standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the following ways: • We have added a new paragraph
(i)to this AD to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless they are part of a later approved revision of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the original type certificate. • We have revised Note 1 of this AD to clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the required inspections. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the six commenters. Request To Allow Inspections Done According to a Maintenance Program Japan Airlines
(JAL)requests that we revise paragraph
(h)of the NPRM to allow an operator to update its FAA- approved maintenance program to include the initial inspections and repair for certain AWLs. JAL states that the NPRM would require accomplishing the initial inspection and repair of certain AWLs, which would require JAL to establish a special inspection and special recordkeeping for the proposed requirement. The compliance times specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD are intended to provide a grace period for those airplanes that have already exceeded the specified threshold in Document D6-13747-CMR. To be in compliance with the recording requirements of this AD, operators must record their compliance with the initial inspection for those airplanes over the specified threshold. We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to specify that accomplishing the applicable AWLs as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that paragraph. Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on behalf of several operators, requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain airworthiness limitation item
(ALI)intervals with the applicable maintenance significant item
(MSI)and enhanced zonal analysis procedure
(EZAP)intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among other changes, the proposal recommends revising certain AWL inspection intervals from 12 years/36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. Qantas Airways also requests that the 36,000-flight-hour parameter be removed from the inspection interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-13. The commenter states that the flight-hour parameter does not adequately take into account actual airplane usage, and that the long haul utilization of the airplane is 5,000 flight hours per year. Based on this number, the commenter states that the AWL tasks would be required at 7.2 years instead of 12 years. Qantas Airways and TradeWinds Airlines both note an inconsistency between the inspection interval specified in Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR and the compliance threshold specified in Table 1 of the NPRM. Table 1 of the NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial inspection within 36,000 total flight cycles or 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first. TradeWinds Airlines requests that we revise the compliance threshold to 36,000 “total flight hours.” However, Qantas Airways would welcome the change from “flight hours” to “flight cycles,” if the flight-hour parameter is not deleted from the inspection intervals specified in Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR. We have reviewed the commenter's requests, and we agree to revise the compliance threshold for certain AWLs identified by KLM and Qantas Airways. As stated previously, Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR specifies a repetitive interval of 144 months. We have revised the threshold specified in Table 1 of this AD accordingly. Request To Harmonize Task Descriptions JAL states that, in Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR, the task descriptions defining the applicable area are different for AWLs Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02. (AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is a repetitive inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank, and AWL No. 28-AWL-02 is a CDCCL to maintain the original design features for the external wires over the center fuel tank.) JAL believes that the task descriptions for these AWLs should match. JAL presumes that, if one purpose for the inspection is to prevent a spark in the fuel vapor over the center fuel tank, then the applicable area should have a certain tolerance instead of defining the area by exact station number. We agree that the task descriptions for AWL Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02 should be harmonized. Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR includes a revised task description of AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which addresses JAL's comments. As stated previously, we have revised this AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR. Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 Boeing, KLM, and Qantas Airways state that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 specified in Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR are going to be revised, since those values are relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state that the revised values will be more representative of the expected values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h)of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in accordance with a later revision of Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR if the revision is approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly. Request To Clarify Use of Equivalent Tools and Chemicals JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools and chemical materials according to the component maintenance manuals (CMMs). JAL states that normally operators can use equivalents without FAA approval when the CMM specifies that equivalents may be used. JAL also states that it has received further clarification from Boeing specifying that unless a CDCCL refers to a certain tool by part number or certain chemicals by name, an operator can continue to use equivalent tools or materials according to the CMMs. We acknowledge the commenter's request and are working with Boeing to provide appropriate flexibility while still ensuring that items critical for maintaining safety continue to be specifically identified in the CMMs. However, to delay issuance of this AD would be inappropriate. We agree that when the CMMs allow use of equivalent tools or chemical materials, operators and repair stations may use equivalents. We have already approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels specified in Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR, including the use of equivalent tools or chemicals where the CMMs state equivalents are allowed. If the CMM does not allow use of an equivalent, none may be used. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Revise Appendix 1 Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM as follows:
(1)Correct the ATA section for AWL No. 28-AWL-03,
(2)add an airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)task title for AWL No. 28-AWL-08, and
(3)add an ATA section for AWL No. 28-AWL-18. JAL requests that we update Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all AWLs specified in the CMR, and that we indicate how to maintain the latest version of Appendix 1. JAL also requests that we correct the following error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For AWL No. 28-AWL-04, change “SWPM 20-10-15” to “SWPM 20-10-13.” We disagree with revising the AMM references, since we have deleted Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose of Appendix 1 was to assist operators in identifying the AMM tasks that could affect compliance with a CDCCL. However, we have also received several similar comments regarding the appendices in other NPRMs that address the same unsafe condition on other Boeing airplanes. Those comments indicate that including non-required information in those NPRMs has caused confusion. Further, Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR contains most of the updated information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we have removed Appendix 1 from this AD. Request To Revise Note 1 Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 of the NPRM to clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC to the required AWLs might be required if an operator has previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 as follows: • Add the words “according to paragraph (g)” at the end of the first sentence. • Replace the words “revision to” with “deviation from” in the last sentence. • Delete the words “(g) or” and “as applicable” from the last sentence. As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 1 of this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note. Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 KLM expects to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. KLM states that if it does the check and does not reach the specified values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be necessary. KLM also states that it would be helpful to plan to do this inspection during an overhaul. We infer that KLM requests that we extend the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in Table 1 of this AD to allow accomplishing the initial inspection during a regularly scheduled “D” check (about 6 years). We disagree with extending the grace period to 6 years. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, the rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In consideration of these items, we have determined that an initial compliance time of 144 months (as discussed previously) with a grace period of 24 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard. Request To Extend the Exceptional Short-Term Extension Qantas Airways requests that we allow exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is less, for AWL tasks. The commenter believes that the exceptional short-term extension of 30 days, which is specified in Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR, is too small for AWL tasks having 12-year intervals. The commenter states that, as part of the Boeing 747 Corrosion Prevention and Control Program mandated by AD 90-25-05, amendment 39-6790 (55 FR 49268, November 27, 1990), operators were given a provision to invoke exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is less. The commenter states that this is a more appropriate magnitude because operators are often permitted one-time exceptional extensions to maintenance checks and tasks of this proportion. The commenter also states that limiting the extension period to 30 days means that a “D” check can never be extended by more than 30 days, which would force operators to do certain AWL inspections outside of a “D” check. We disagree with the commenter's request because exceptional short-term extensions are, in essence, pre-approved extensions without Seattle ACO review of the specifics of the situation. We consider that the ability to extend the interval without further approval for 30 days should be sufficient for most circumstances. However, if an operator finds that it needs an extension longer than 30 days, with appropriate justification one may be requested from the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority. Longer extensions may be granted on a case-by-case basis because, as Qantas Airways points out, the task interval is long, and the FAA is interested in limiting out-of-sequence work. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM JAL requests that we revise the NPRM to require incorporation of the latest revision of the manufacturer's AMM. JAL asserts that we have allowed Boeing to include statements in the Boeing AMM allowing operators to use certain CMM revision levels or later revisions. JAL states that, with the exception of the CMM, operators cannot find what revision level of the AMM needs to be incorporated into the operator's AMM in order to comply with the proposed requirements of the NPRM. JAL also states that it could take several weeks to incorporate the manufacturer's AMM. JAL further requests that we clarify whether it is acceptable to change the procedures in the AMM with Boeing's acceptance. JAL states that the CMR notes that any use of parts, methods, techniques, or practices not contained in the applicable CDCCL and AWL inspection must be approved by the FAA office that is responsible for the airplane model type certificate, or applicable regulatory agency. JAL also states that the Boeing AMM or CMM notes to obey the manufacturer's procedures when doing maintenance that affects a CDCCL or AWL inspection. However, JAL believes that according to the NPRM it is acceptable to change the AMM procedures with Boeing's acceptance. We disagree with the changes proposed by the commenter. This AD does not require revising the AMM. This AD does require revising your maintenance program to incorporate the AWLs identified in Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR. However, complying with the AWL inspections or CDCCLs will require other actions by operators including AMM revisions. In the U.S., operators are not required to use original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)maintenance manuals. Operators may develop their own manuals, which are reviewed and accepted by the FAA Flight Standards Service. In order to maintain that flexibility for operators, most of the AWLs contain all of the critical information, such as maximum bonding resistances and minimum separation requirements. The FAA Flight Standards Service will only accept operator manuals that contain all of the information specified in the AWLs, so there is no need to require operators to use the OEM maintenance manuals. Regarding JAL's request for clarification of approval of AWL changes, we infer JAL is referring to the following sentence located in the “Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be made without approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, through an appropriate FAA principal maintenance inspector
(PMI)or principal avionics inspector (PAI), by the governing regulatory authority, or by using the operator's standard process for revising maintenance manuals.” If changes need to be made to tasks associated with an AWL, they may be made using an operator's normal process without approval of the Seattle ACO, as long as the change maintains the information specified in the AWL. For some CDCCLs, it was beneficial to not put all the critical information into the CMR. This avoids duplication of a large amount of information. In these cases, the CDCCL refers to a specific revision of the CMM. U.S. operators are required to use those CMMs. Any changes to the CMMs must be approved by the Seattle ACO. Request To Delete Reference to Task Cards All Nippon Airways
(ANA)requests that we delete the words “and task cards,” unless the task card references are listed in Section D of Document D6-13747-CMR or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words are located in the following sentence in the “Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “Operators that do not use Boeing's revision service should revise their maintenance manuals and task cards to highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance personnel are complying with the CDCCLs.” ANA believes that if a task card refers to the AMM, which includes the CDCCL note, then highlighting the CDCCL items is not necessary because they are already highlighted in the AMM and maintenance personnel always refer to the AMM. ANA further states that the applicable task card references are not listed in Section D of Document D6-13747-CMR, or in Appendix 1 of the NPRM; they refer only to the AMM. ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult to find out or distinguish the affected task card. JAL believes that the proposed requirement regarding the CDCCLs is to incorporate the manufacturer's maintenance manuals into an operator's maintenance manual. If the description of a CDCCL is missing from the manufacturer's AMM, then JAL believes that operators are not responsible for the requirements of the AD. We agree that the task cards might not need to be revised because an operator might find that the AMM notes are sufficient. However, we disagree with deleting the reference to the task cards since some operators might need to add notes to their task cards. This AD does not require any changes to the maintenance manuals or task cards. The AD requires incorporating new AWLs into the operator's maintenance program. It is up to the operator to determine how best to ensure compliance with the new AWLs. In the “Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM, we were only suggesting, not requiring, ways that an operator could implement CDCCLs into its maintenance program. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Clarify Meaning of Task Cards JAL requests that we clarify whether “task cards,” as found in the “Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM, means Boeing task cards only or if they also include an operator's unique task cards. We intended that “task cards” mean both Boeing and an operator's unique task cards, as applicable. The intent is to address whatever type of task cards are used by mechanics for maintenance. This AD would not require any changes to the AMMs or task cards relative to the CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways an operator might implement CDCCLs into its maintenance program. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Delete Reference to Parts Manufacturer Approval
(PMA)Parts ANA requests that we delete the words “Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)approved parts),” unless a continuous supply of CMM specified parts is warranted or the FAA is open 24 hours to approve alternative parts for in-house repair by the operator. Those words are located in the following sentence in the “Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)approved parts), methods, techniques, and practices not contained in the CMMs needs to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority.” ANA states that in some cases the parts specified in the CMMs cannot be obtained from the parts market or directly from the component vendor, so an operator is forced into using alternative parts to keep its schedule. ANA requests that we direct the component vendor to ensure a continuous supply of CMM parts and to direct the component vendor to remedy a lack of parts if parts are not promptly supplied. ANA further requests that we direct the component vendor to promptly review the standard parts and allow use of alternative fasteners and washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA asserts that, in some cases, a component vendor specifies the uncommon part to preserve its monopoly. We disagree with revising the “Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM. We make every effort to identify potential problems with the parts supply, and we are not aware of any problems at this time. The impetus to declare overhaul and repair of certain fuel tank system components as CDCCLs arose from in-service pump failures that resulted from repairs not done according to OEM procedures. We have approved the use of the CMMs—including parts, methods, techniques, and practices—at the revision levels specified in Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR. Third-party spare parts, such as parts approved by PMA, have not been reviewed. An operator may submit a request to the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority, for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that use of an alternative part would provide an acceptable level of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict where repairs can be performed, so an operator may do the work in-house as long as the approved CMMs are followed. If operators would like to change those procedures, they can request approval of the changes. The FAA makes every effort to respond to operators' requests in a timely manner. If there is a potential for disrupting the flight schedule, the operator should include that information in its request. Operators should request approval for the use of PMA parts and alternative procedures from the FAA or the governing regulatory authority in advance in order to limit schedule disruptions. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Identify Other Test Equipment JAL states that certain test equipment is designated in the CMR and that additional equipment should also be designated. For example, AWL No. 28-AWL-03 would require using loop resistance tester, part number (P/N) 906-10246-2 or -3. Therefore, JAL requests that we also identify alternative test equipment, so that operators do not need to seek an AMOC to use other equipment. We disagree with identifying other test equipment. We cannot identify every possible piece of test equipment. We ensure that some are listed as recommended by the manufacturer. With substantiating data, operators can request approval of an alternative tester from the Seattle ACO, or the governing regulatory agency. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request to Clarify AWL No. 28-AWL-02 JAL requests that we clarify the intent of AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL states that Chapters 53-01 and 53-21 of the Boeing 747 AMM specify doing an inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing tank based on AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL also states that, according to Revision March 2006 of Document D6-13747-CMR, AWL No. 28-AWL-02 contains two limitations: maintaining the existing wire bundle routing and clamping, and installing any new wire bundle per the Boeing standard wiring practices manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL believes it is not necessary to inspect the external wires over the center fuel tank according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing tank, unless that wire bundle routing and clamping are changed. We point out that AWL No. 28-AWL-02 also contains a third limitation: Verifying that all wire bundles over the center fuel tank are inspected according to AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which refers to AMM 28-11-00 for accomplishing the inspection. We do not agree that the inspection should be required only if the wire bundle routing and clamping are changed while maintenance is accomplished in the area. If any of the other bundles have a clamp or routing failure, it must be detected and corrected. After accomplishing the inspection required by AWL No. 28-AWL-01, an operator would not need to repeat the inspection for another 12 years. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request for Clarification for Recording Compliance With CDCCLs JAL requests that we clarify the following sentence: “An entry into an operator's existing maintenance record system for corrective action is sufficient for recording compliance with CDCCLs, as long as the applicable maintenance manual and task cards identify actions that are CDCCLs.” That sentence is located in the “Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL asks whether an operator must indicate the CDCCL in their recording documents or whether it is sufficient for the recording document to call out the applicable AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs. We have coordinated with the FAA Flight Standards Service and it agrees that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the applicable AMMs and task cards identify the CDCCL, then the entry into the recording documents does not need to identify the CDCCL. However, if the applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not identify the CDCCL, then they must be identified. Other methods may be accepted by the appropriate FAA PMI or PAI, or governing regulatory authority. 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 308 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Maintenance program revision 8 None $640 93 $59,520 Inspections 8 None 640 93 59,520 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: **2008-10-07 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15513. Docket No. FAA-2007-28385; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-181-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)according to paragraph
(k)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information Reference
(f)The term “Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR,” as used in this AD, means Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008. (For the purposes of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR, the Model 747SR series airplane is basically a Model 747-100 series airplane with certain modifications to improve fatigue life.) Maintenance Program Revision
(g)Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate the information in Section D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS,” AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-19 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR; except that the initial inspections required by paragraph
(h)of this AD must be done at the applicable compliance time specified in that paragraph. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 through No. 28-AWL-23 inclusive, as identified in Section D of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR, also may be incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance program. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of Document D6-13747-CMR is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary
(h)Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with Section D of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR. The repair must be done before further flight. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance with a later revision of Document D6-13747-CMR is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the inspections identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” Table 1.—Initial Inspections AWL No. Description Compliance Time (whichever occurs later) Threshold Grace period 28-AWL-01 A detailed inspection of external wires over the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, wire chafing, and wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel tank Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD. 28-AWL-03 A special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indicating system to verify functional integrity Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. 28-AWL-13 A special detailed inspection of the fault current bond of the fueling shutoff valve actuator of the center wing tank to verify electrical bond Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(i)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-13747-CMR that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the Service Information
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2006; Revision May 2006; Revision December 2006; Revision January 2007; Revision September 2007; or Revision January 2008; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(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.
(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
(l)You must use Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008, 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 28, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9896 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0118; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-289-AD; Amendment 39-15502; AD 2008-09-21] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 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: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is issued following the discovery of a risk of chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. Most of the time, this possible chafing would be dormant and would lead to an uneventful loss of segregation within the different electrical system components. However, missing segregation combined with additional electrical failures may impair flight safety. Chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel could lead to electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12, 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 February 5, 2008 (73 FR 6620). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is issued following the discovery of a risk of chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. Most of the time, this possible chafing would be dormant and would lead to an uneventful loss of segregation within the different electrical system components. However, missing segregation combined with additional electrical failures may impair flight safety. This AD mandates inspection of the electrical feeder bundle, and modification of its routing under the circuit breaker panel through implementation of modification M3093. Chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel could lead to electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit. The corrective action includes repairing or replacing damaged wiring; re-routing the feeder cables above the wiring of the “Avionic Master” and “Aux Bat” relays; installing a protective sheath on the feeder cables; adding spacers to separate the bus bar wiring assemblies from the feeder cables; and adding Teflon protection on the feeder cables and securing the feeder cables with wiring retaining strips. 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 76 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $72,960, or $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 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: **2008-09-21 Dassault Aviation:** Amendment 39-15502. Docket No. FAA-2008-0118; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-289-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number (S/N) 251 and S/N 253 and subsequent, without modification M3093 implemented. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 24: Electrical power. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is issued following the discovery of a risk of chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel. Most of the time, this possible chafing would be dormant and would lead to an uneventful loss of segregation within the different electrical system components. However, missing segregation combined with additional electrical failures may impair flight safety. This AD mandates inspection of the electrical feeder bundle, and modification of its routing under the circuit breaker panel through implementation of modification M3093. Chafing between an electrical feeder bundle and a bus bar under the circuit breaker panel could lead to electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit. The corrective action includes repairing or replacing damaged wiring; re-routing the feeder cables above the wiring of the “Avionic Master” and “Aux Bat” relays; installing a protective sheath on the feeder cables; adding spacers to separate the bus bar wiring assemblies from the feeder cables; and adding Teflon protection on the feeder cables and securing the feeder cables with wiring retaining strips. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done: Within 13 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect for damage of the electrical feeder bundle; repair or replace wiring, as applicable; and modify its routing as detailed in the accomplishment instructions paragraph of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-483, dated June 6, 2007, including Erratum dated July 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)* : The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product* : For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements* : For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0175, dated June 28, 2007; and Dassault Service Bulletin F50-483, dated June 6, 2007, including Erratum dated July 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Dassault Service Bulletin F50-483, dated June 6, 2007, including Erratum dated July 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 Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606.
(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 23, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager,Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9895 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28384; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-165-AD; Amendment 39-15516; AD 2008-10-10] 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 revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires the initial inspection of a certain repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12, 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: Samuel Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6510; 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 July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36920). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the initial inspection of a certain repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary Revision
(TR)09-020, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-020 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred to as “Revision March 2008 of the MPD”). The NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision March 2008 of the MPD, among other actions, includes the following changes: • Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight cycles from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 and No. 28-AWL-03. • Revises the task description for AWL No. 28-AWL-01 to harmonize it with AWL No. 28-AWL-02 by removing references to certain station numbers. • Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system
(FQIS)wire bundle installations. Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h)of this AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of the MPD. We also have added a new paragraph
(j)to this AD specifying that actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006 through February 2008 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. (In Revision March 2007 of the MPD, Boeing revised the document title to “737-600/700/800/900.”) We also have removed reference to 36,000 total flight cycles from paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and revised the initial threshold for accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Since publication of Revision March 2006 of the MPD, Boeing has revised the contents of certain subsections of the MPD. Information pertaining to the fuel system AWLs has been removed from Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—SYSTEMS” and placed into a new Subsection E, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS.” The subsequent subsections of the MPD were reidentified accordingly. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD to refer to Subsections E, F, and G, respectively. Operators should note that we have revised paragraph
(g)of this AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-22 inclusive. AWL No. 28-AWL-23 was added in Revision May 2006 of the MPD, and AWL No. 28-AWL-24 was added in Revision October 2006 of the MPD. However, as an optional action, operators may incorporate those two AWLs as specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD. Operators should also note that we have issued a separate NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2007-28661) that, in part, proposes to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-19 and No. 28-AWL-23 into the AWLs section of the ICA. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2007 (72 FR 37479). We have also issued AD 2008-06-03, amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008) that, in part, requires revising the AWLs section of the ICA to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph
(k)to this AD specifying that incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2008-06-03. Other Changes Made to This AD For standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the following ways: • We have added a new paragraph
(i)to this AD to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless they are part of a later approved revision of Revision March 2008 of the MPD, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the original type certificate. • We have revised Note 2 of this AD to clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the required inspections. • We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to specify that accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that paragraph. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the six commenters. Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 Boeing and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
(KLM)state that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD are going to be revised, since those values are relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state that the revised values will be more representative of the expected values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h)of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in accordance with a later revision of the MPD if the revision is approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly. Request To Extend the Task Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections KLM, on behalf of several operators, requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain airworthiness limitation item
(ALI)intervals with the applicable maintenance significant item
(MSI)and enhanced zonal analysis procedure
(EZAP)intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among other changes, the proposal recommends extending certain AWL inspection intervals from 10 years/36,000 flight cycles to 12 years for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member Delta Airlines (DAL), notes an inconsistency between the inspection interval specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD and the compliance threshold specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM. Paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial inspection prior to the accumulation of 36,000 total flight hours, or 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first. DAL requests that we revise the compliance threshold to 36,000 “total flight cycles.” We disagree with KLM's request to extend certain AWL inspection intervals to 12 years. However, as stated previously, we have deleted the 36,000-total-flight-hour parameter from paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to correspond with the task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as specified in Revision March 2008 of the MPD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. 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 Require the Incorporation of AWL No. 28-AWL-24 The ATA, on behalf of its member Delta Airlines (DAL), notes that AD 2008-06-03 requires a revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24. DAL states that AD 2008-06-03 appears to duplicate the proposed requirements of the NPRM, and that it is more appropriate to have this AD require the incorporation of AWLs No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24. We infer that the commenters request that we delete paragraph (h)(1) from AD 2008-06-03, and revise this AD to require incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-24 into the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. (This AD requires the incorporation of AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No 28-AWL-22 and specifies that AWL No. 28-AWL-24 may be incorporated as an optional action.) We do not agree to revise this AD or AD 2008-06-03. Revision March 2008 of the MPD contains an applicability column that identifies the airplane configuration to which the AWL applies. That AWL is required only for airplanes that have that configuration. If the applicability column identifies a service bulletin, then the operator would not need to adhere to the AWL until the airplane is modified in accordance with that service bulletin. There is no penalty for incorporating the AWL before accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin, and doing so actually reduces the paperwork burden for the FAA and the operators by incorporating subsections E, F, and G in their entirety. Also, it is necessary to have AD 2008-06-03 require the incorporation of AWLs No 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24, since those AWLs are tied to the design change required by paragraph
(g)of AD 2008-06-03. If an operator were to comply with AD 2008-06-03 before complying with this AD and did not revise its MPD concurrently with accomplishing the design change, then the operations checks required by those AWLs would not be performed at the proper time. However, we do not intend for operators to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-21 and No. 28-AWL-22 into the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness twice by two separate airworthiness directives. As stated previously, we have added a new paragraph
(k)to this AD specifying that incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2008-06-03. Request To Issue Separate Airworthiness Directives The ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines (AAL), requests that we delete the initial inspection and repair specified in paragraph
(h)of the NPRM and address those actions with a separate airworthiness directive. AAL states that the different actions and compliance times proposed in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of the NPRM create confusion and difficulty in tracking compliance. AAL also states that it will not be able to say it is fully compliant with the requirements of the NPRM by December 16, 2008, because it will still be in the process of completing the initial inspection and repair specified in paragraph
(h)of the NPRM. AirTran Airways states that it is unclear as to why AWL No. 28-AWL-03 is given special consideration in paragraph
(h)of the NPRM. AirTran Airways also states that, although it is not affected by the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM, it assumes that there are other operators who will be affected by it due to the age of the fleet. AirTran Airways, therefore, requests that we substantiate why the NPRM contains a more restrictive requirement for AWL No. 28-AWL-03. We disagree with issuing a separate airworthiness directive to address the requirements of the paragraph
(h)of this AD. Some airplanes might have already passed the age when the initial inspection required by AWL No. 28-AWL-03 should have been accomplished. The intent of paragraph
(h)of this AD is to phase in that inspection for those airplanes. Further, paragraph (h)(2) of this AD provides a 24-month grace period for an airplane that has already exceeded the compliance threshold specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Revise Appendix 1 Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM to add an additional ATA section for AWL No. 28-AWL-02 and for AWL No. 28-AWL-17. The ATA, on behalf of its member DAL, requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM as follows:
(1)add the task title for AWLs No. 28-AWL-08, No. 28-AWL-12, No. 28-AWL-13, and No. 28-AWL-22 based on the information found in the MPD,
(2)add the “ALI/CDCCL” designation, airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)reference, and task title for AWL No. 28-AWL-20 based on the information in the MPD, and
(3)delete any duplicate sources of service information and reference a single source document that provides the task instructions necessary to comply with the AWLs. We disagree with revising the AMM references, since we have deleted Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose of Appendix 1 was to assist operators in identifying the AMM tasks that could affect compliance with a CDCCL. However, we have also received several similar comments regarding the appendices in other NPRMs that address the same unsafe condition on other Boeing airplanes. Those comments indicate that including non-required information in those NPRMs has caused confusion. Further, Revision March 2008 of the MPD contains most of the updated information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we have removed Appendix 1 from this AD. Request To Revise Note 2 Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 of the NPRM to clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC to the required MPD AWLs might be required if an operator has previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 as follows: • Add the words “according to paragraph (g)” at the end of the first sentence. • Replace the words “revision to” with “deviation from” in the last sentence. • Delete the words “(g) or” and “as applicable” from the last sentence. As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 2 of this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note. Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 KLM expects to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The commenter states that if it does the check and does not reach the specified values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be necessary. The commenter also states that it would be helpful to plan to do this inspection during an overhaul. We infer that KLM requests that we extend the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to allow accomplishing the initial inspection during a regularly scheduled “D” check (about 6 years). We disagree with extending the grace period to 6 years. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, the rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In consideration of these items, we have determined that an initial compliance time of 120 months (as discussed previously) with a grace period of 24 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard. Request To Revise the Estimated Costs Table The ATA, on behalf of its member DAL, states that it disagrees with the cost estimate for accomplishing the inspection provided in the “Estimated Costs” table of the NPRM because it does not include the time required for accomplishing the additional repetitive inspections. DAL also states that it will take much more than eight hours to accomplish the initial inspection. We infer the commenters request that we revise the “Estimated Cost” table in this AD to reflect the cost of accomplishing the repetitive inspections. We do not agree because the repetitive inspections are not directly required by this AD. This AD only requires the change to the maintenance program via a revision to the MPD, and the initial accomplishment of AWL No. 28-AWL-03. Section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 91.403(c)) requires the repetitive inspections once the maintenance program is changed. Although DAL states the initial inspection takes more than 8 hours, it has not provided an estimate. Therefore, we have not changed this AD 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 1,960 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost AWLs revision 8 None $640 682 $436,480 Inspection 8 None 640 682 436,480 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: **2008-10-10 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15516. Docket No. FAA-2007-28384; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-165-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 12, 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, with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued before March 31, 2006. Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after March 31, 2006, must already be in compliance with the airworthiness limitations specified in this AD because those limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness certification of those airplanes. Note 2: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)according to paragraph
(l)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information Reference
(f)The term “Revision March 2008 of the MPD,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision
(TR)09-020, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-020 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision March 2008. Revision to Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs)Section
(g)Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)by incorporating into the MPD the information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD; except that the initial inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD must be done at the applicable compliance time specified in that paragraph. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1)Subsection E, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
(2)Subsection F, “PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEM AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
(3)Subsection G, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-22 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-23 and No. 28-AWL-24, as identified in Subsection G of Revision March 2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated into the AWLs section of the ICA. Initial Inspection and Repair if Necessary
(h)At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indication system
(FQIS)wiring to verify functional integrity, in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Subsection G of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. If any discrepancy is found during the inspection, repair the discrepancy before further flight in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Subsection G of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.”
(1)Within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certification or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
(2)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(i)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision March 2008 of the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the following MPDs are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD: Section 9 of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/700IGW/800/900 MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision March 2006; Revision May 2006; Revision October 2006; Revision November 2006; or Revision November 2006 R1; and Section 9 of the Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision March 2007; Revision March 2007 R1; Revision March 2007 R2; or Revision February 2008. Terminating Action for AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415
(k)Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No. 28-AWL-24 into the AWLs section of the ICA in accordance with paragraph
(g)of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2008-06-03. 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.
(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
(m)You must use Boeing Temporary Revision 09-020, dated March 2008, to the Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing Temporary Revision 09-020 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision March 2008.
(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 29, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9919 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28386; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-162-AD; Amendment 39-15512; AD 2008-10-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This AD also requires the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12, 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: Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6501; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36385). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs)for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if necessary. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Temporary Revision
(TR)09-010, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-010 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D621U400-9, Revision March 2008 (hereafter referred to as “Revision March 2008 of the MPD”). The NPRM referred to Revision March 2006 of the MPD as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Revision March 2008 of the MPD, among other actions, includes the following changes: • Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight hours from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10. • Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system
(FQIS)wire bundle installations. • Adds new AWLs No. 28-AWL-30, No. 28-AWL-31, and No. 28-AWL-32 to incorporate new critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) for the electronic fuel level indication system
(EFLI)for Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank. Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and
(h)of this AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of the MPD. We also have removed reference to 36,000 total flight cycles from Table 1 of this AD and revised the initial threshold for accomplishing AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10 to within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. (The NPRM incorrectly specified 36,000 total “flight cycles” instead of “flight hours.”) We also have added a new paragraph
(k)to this AD specifying that actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions March 2006 through November 2007 of the MPD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. Operators should note that we have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this AD to require incorporating only AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-23 inclusive. AWLs No. 28-AWL-24, No. 28-AWL-25, No. 28-AWL-26, No. 28-AWL-27, No. 28-AWL-28, and No. 28-AWL-29 were added in other revisions of the MPD after March 2006 and before March 2008. We have issued a separate NPRM that proposes to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-25 into the FAA-approved maintenance program. We have also issued a separate NPRM that proposes to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-27 into the FAA-approved maintenance program. Those NPRMs were published in the **Federal Register** on January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5770 and 5773, respectively). We might issue additional rulemaking to require the incorporation of AWLs No. 28-AWL-24, No. 28-AWL-26, No. 28-AWL-28, and No. 28-AWL-29. However, as an optional action, operators may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD. Further, we have added a new paragraph
(i)to this AD, which requires the incorporation of AWLs No. 28-AWL-30, No. 28-AWL-31, and No. 28-AWL-32 on Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank. Since none of these airplanes are on the U.S. Register, this change does not impose an additional burden on any U.S. operators. Other Changes Made to This AD We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to clarify that the actions identified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance time specified in that table. Also, for standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the following ways: • We have added a new paragraph
(j)to this AD to specify that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless they are part of a later approved revision of Revision March 2008 of the MPD, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the original type certificate. • We have revised Note 2 of this AD to clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the required inspections. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from the six commenters. Request To Allow Inspections Done According to a Maintenance Program Japan Airlines
(JAL)requests that we revise paragraph
(h)of the NPRM to allow an operator to update its FAA-approved maintenance program to include the initial inspections and repair for certain AWLs. JAL states that the NPRM would require accomplishing the initial inspection and repair of certain AWLs, which would require JAL to establish a special inspection and special recordkeeping for the proposed requirement. The compliance times specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD are intended to provide a grace period for those airplanes that have already exceeded the specified threshold in the MPD. To be in compliance with the recording requirements of this AD, operators must record their compliance with the initial inspection for those airplanes over the specified threshold. We have revised paragraph
(h)of this AD to specify that accomplishing the applicable AWLs as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time constitutes compliance with the applicable requirements of that paragraph. Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), on behalf of several operators, requests that we review a 45-page proposal to align certain airworthiness limitation item
(ALI)intervals with the applicable maintenance significant item
(MSI)and enhanced zonal analysis procedure
(EZAP)intervals for Model 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal ensure that the ALI intervals align with the maintenance schedules of the operators. Among other changes, the proposal recommends revising certain AWL inspection intervals from 12 years/36,000 flight hours to only 12 years for Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. Qantas Airways also requests that the 36,000-flight-hour parameter be removed from the inspection interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10. The commenter states that the flight-hour parameter does not adequately take into account actual airplane usage, and that the long haul utilization of the airplane is 5,000 to 6,000 flight hours per year. Based on this number, the commenter states that the AWL tasks would be required at 6 years instead of 12 years. Qantas Airways and Lufthansa both note an inconsistency between the inspection interval specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD and the compliance threshold specified in Table 1 of the NPRM. Table 1 of the NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial inspection within 36,000 total flight cycles or 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first. Qantas Airways would welcome the change from “flight hours” to “flight cycles,” if the flight-hour parameter is not deleted from the inspection intervals specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD. We have reviewed the commenter's requests, and we agree to revise the compliance threshold for certain AWLs identified by the commenters. As stated previously, Revision March 2008 of the MPD specifies a repetitive interval of 144 months. We have revised the threshold specified in Table 1 of this AD accordingly. Request To Harmonize Task Descriptions JAL states that, in Revision March 2006 of the MPD, the task descriptions defining the applicable area are different for AWLs Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02. (AWL No. 28-AWL-01 is a repetitive inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank, and AWL No. 28-AWL-02 is a CDCCL to maintain the original design features for the external wires over the center fuel tank.) JAL believes that the task descriptions for these AWLs should match. JAL presumes that, if one purpose for the inspection is to prevent a spark in the fuel vapor over the center fuel tank, then the applicable area should have a certain tolerance instead of defining the area by exact station number. We agree that the task descriptions for AWL Nos. 28-AWL-01 and 28-AWL-02 should be harmonized. Revision March 2008 of the MPD includes a revised task description of AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which addresses JAL's comments. As stated previously, we have revised this AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of the MPD. Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 Boeing, KLM, Lufthansa, and Qantas Airways state that the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD are going to be revised, since those values are relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state that the revised values will be more representative of the expected values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to paragraph
(h)of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used in accordance with a later revision of the MPD if the revision is approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As stated previously, we have revised this AD accordingly. Request To Revise Estimated Costs Qantas Airways states that the work-hour estimates provided in the NPRM seem too small. The commenter has submitted its estimates for AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, No. 28-AWL-10, No. 28-AWL-17, and No. 28-AWL-21. We infer the commenter requests that we revise the “Costs of Compliance” section of this AD to reflect its estimates. We agree to include the work-hour estimates for the initial accomplishment of AWLs No. 28-AWL-01, No. 28-AWL-03, and No. 28-AWL-10 in this AD. We have not included the estimate for AWL No. 28-AWL-17, since this AD does not need to require the initial inspection of that AWL to phase in the inspection. The initial inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-17 should have been previously accomplished as part of the existing FAA-approved maintenance program. We also have not included the estimate for AWL No. 28-AWL-21 because incorporation of that AWL has been postponed, as specified in Revision 24, dated June 2006, of the MPD. Request To Clarify Use of Equivalent Tools and Chemicals JAL requests that we provide guidelines for using equivalent tools and chemical materials according to the component maintenance manuals (CMMs). JAL states that normally operators can use equivalents without FAA approval when the CMM specifies that equivalents may be used. JAL also states that it has received further clarification from Boeing specifying that unless a CDCCL refers to a certain tool by part number or certain chemicals by name, an operator can continue to use equivalent tools or materials according to the CMMs. We acknowledge the commenter's request and are working with Boeing to provide appropriate flexibility while still ensuring that items critical for maintaining safety continue to be specifically identified in the CMMs. However, to delay issuance of this AD would be inappropriate. We agree that when the CMMs allow use of equivalent tools or chemical materials, operators and repair stations may use equivalents. We have already approved the use of the CMMs at the revision levels specified in Revision March 2008 of the MPD, including the use of equivalent tools or chemicals where the CMMs state equivalents are allowed. If the CMM does not allow use of an equivalent, none may be used. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Revise Appendix 1 Boeing requests that we revise Appendix 1 of the NPRM as follows:
(1)Reference an additional ATA section for AWL No. 28-AWL-02,
(2)correct the airplane maintenance manual
(AMM)task titles and numbers for AWL No. 28-AWL-09,
(3)correct the AMM task number for AWL No. 28-AWL-10,
(4)delete certain information from the ATA section for AWL No. 28-AWL-21, and
(4)add AMM task titles and numbers for AWL No. 28-AWL-23. JAL requests that we update Appendix 1 of the NPRM to include all AWLs specified in the MPD, and that we indicate how to maintain the latest version of Appendix 1. JAL also requests that we correct the following error in Appendix 1 of the NPRM: For AWL No. 28-AWL-04, change “SWPM 20-10-15” to “SWPM 20-10-13.” We disagree with revising the AMM references, since we have deleted Appendix 1 from this AD. The purpose of Appendix 1 was to assist operators in identifying the AMM tasks that could affect compliance with a CDCCL. However, we have also received several similar comments regarding the appendices in other NPRMs that address the same unsafe condition on other Boeing airplanes. Those comments indicate that including non-required information in those NPRMs has caused confusion. Further, Revision March 2008 of the MPD contains most of the updated information that is listed in Appendix 1 of the NPRM. Therefore, we have removed Appendix 1 from this AD. Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 Lufthansa and KLM expect to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The commenters state that if they do the check and do not reach the specified values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be necessary. The commenters also state that it would be helpful to plan to do this inspection during an overhaul. We infer that the commenters request that we extend the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in Table 1 of this AD to allow accomplishing the initial inspection during a regularly scheduled “D” check (about 6 years). We disagree with extending the grace period to 6 years. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications, the rate of lightning strikes in the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In consideration of these items, we have determined that an initial compliance time of 144 months (as discussed previously) with a grace period of 24 months will ensure an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the grace period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard. Request To Extend the Exceptional Short-Term Extension Qantas Airways requests that we allow exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is less, for AWL tasks. The commenter believes that the exceptional short-term extension of 30 days, which is specified in Revision March 2006 of the MPD, is too small for AWL tasks having 12-year intervals. The commenter states that, as part of the Boeing 747 Corrosion Prevention and Control Program mandated by AD 90-25-05, amendment 39-6790 (55 FR 49268, November 27, 1990), operators were given a provision to invoke exceptional short-term extensions of 10 percent of the task interval or 6 months, whichever is less. The commenter states that this is a more appropriate magnitude because operators are often permitted one-time exceptional extensions to maintenance checks and tasks of this proportion. The commenter also states that limiting the extension period to 30 days means that a “D” check can never be extended by more than 30 days, which would force operators to do certain AWL inspections outside of a “D” check. We disagree with the commenter's request because exceptional short-term extensions are, in essence, pre-approved extensions without Seattle ACO review of the specifics of the situation. We consider that the ability to extend the interval without further approval for 30 days should be sufficient for most circumstances. However, if an operator finds that it needs an extension longer than 30 days, with appropriate justification one may be requested from the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority. Longer extensions may be granted on a case-by-case basis because, as Qantas Airways points out, the task interval is long, and the FAA is interested in limiting out-of-sequence work. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Add Applicability to Table 1 Lufthansa states that the applicability of AWL inspections should be included in Table 1 of the AD. We disagree because the AWL inspections listed in Table 1 of this AD are applicable to all airplanes identified in paragraph
(c)of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Require Latest Revision of the AMM JAL requests that we revise the NPRM to require incorporation of the latest revision of the manufacturer's AMM. JAL asserts that we have allowed Boeing to include statements in the Boeing AMM allowing operators to use certain CMM revision levels or later revisions. JAL states that, with the exception of the CMM, operators cannot find what revision level of the AMM needs to be incorporated into the operator's AMM in order to comply with the proposed requirements of the NPRM. JAL also states that it could take several weeks to incorporate the manufacturer's AMM. JAL further requests that we clarify whether it is acceptable to change the procedures in the AMM with Boeing's acceptance. JAL states that the MPD notes that any use of parts, methods, techniques, or practices not contained in the applicable CDCCL and AWL inspection must be approved by the FAA office that is responsible for the airplane model type certificate, or applicable regulatory agency. JAL also states that the Boeing AMM or CMM notes to obey the manufacturer's procedures when doing maintenance that affects a CDCCL or AWL inspection. However, JAL believes that according to the NPRM it is acceptable to change the AMM procedures with Boeing's acceptance. We disagree with the changes proposed by the commenter. This AD does not require revising the AMM. This AD does require revising your maintenance program to incorporate the AWLs identified in Revision March 2008 of the MPD. However, complying with the AWL inspections or CDCCLs will require other actions by operators including AMM revisions. In the U.S., operators are not required to use original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)maintenance manuals. Operators may develop their own manuals, which are reviewed and accepted by the FAA Flight Standards Service. In order to maintain that flexibility for operators, most of the AWLs contain all of the critical information, such as maximum bonding resistances and minimum separation requirements. The FAA Flight Standards Service will only accept operator manuals that contain all of the information specified in the AWLs, so there is no need to require operators to use the OEM maintenance manuals. Regarding JAL's request for clarification of approval of AWL changes, we infer JAL is referring to the following sentence located in the “Changes to AMMs Referenced in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “A maintenance manual change to these tasks may be made without approval by the Manager, Seattle ACO, through an appropriate FAA principal maintenance inspector
(PMI)or principal avionics inspector (PAI), by the governing regulatory authority, or by using the operator's standard process for revising maintenance manuals.” If changes need to be made to tasks associated with an AWL, they may be made using an operator's normal process without approval of the Seattle ACO, as long as the change maintains the information specified in the AWL. For some CDCCLs, it was beneficial to not put all the critical information into the MPD. This avoids duplication of a large amount of information. In these cases, the CDCCL refers to a specific revision of the CMM. U.S. operators are required to use those CMMs. Any changes to the CMMs must be approved by the Seattle ACO. Request To Revise Note 2 Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 of the NPRM to clarify the need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC to the required MPD AWLs might be required if an operator has previously modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the limitations. Boeing requests that we revise Note 2 as follows: • Add the words “according to paragraph (g)” at the end of the first sentence. • Replace the words “revision to” with “deviation from” in the last sentence. • Delete the words “(g) or” and “as applicable” from the last sentence. As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 2 of this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note. Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Delete Reference to Task Cards All Nippon Airways
(ANA)requests that we delete the words “and task cards,” unless the task card references are listed in Subsection D of the MPD or Appendix 1 of the AD. Those words are located in the following sentence in the “Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “Operators that do not use Boeing's revision service should revise their maintenance manuals and task cards to highlight actions tied to CDCCLs to ensure that maintenance personnel are complying with the CDCCLs.” ANA believes that if a task card refers to the AMM, which includes the CDCCL note, then highlighting the CDCCL items is not necessary because they are already highlighted in the AMM and maintenance personnel always refer to the AMM. ANA further states that the applicable task card references are not listed in Subsection D of the MPD, or in Appendix 1 of the NPRM; they refer only to the AMM. ANA, therefore, states that it is difficult to find out or distinguish the affected task card. JAL believes that the proposed requirement regarding the CDCCLs is to incorporate the manufacturer's maintenance manuals into an operator's maintenance manual. If the description of a CDCCL is missing from the manufacturer's AMM, then JAL believes that operators are not responsible for the requirements of the AD. We agree that the task cards might not need to be revised because an operator might find that the AMM notes are sufficient. However, we disagree with deleting the reference to the task cards since some operators might need to add notes to their task cards. This AD does not require any changes to the maintenance manuals or task cards. The AD requires incorporating new AWLs into the operator's maintenance program. It is up to the operator to determine how best to ensure compliance with the new AWLs. In the “Ensuring Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM, we were only suggesting, not requiring, ways that an operator could implement CDCCLs into its maintenance program. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Clarify Meaning of Task Cards JAL requests that we clarify whether “task cards,” as found in the “Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM, means Boeing task cards only or if they also include an operator's unique task cards. We intended that “task cards” mean both Boeing and an operator's unique task cards, as applicable. The intent is to address whatever type of task cards are used by mechanics for maintenance. This AD would not require any changes to the AMMs or task cards relative to the CDCCLs. We are only suggesting ways an operator might implement CDCCLs into its maintenance program. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Delete Reference to Parts Manufacturer Approval
(PMA)Parts ANA requests that we delete the words “Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)approved parts),” unless a continuous supply of CMM specified parts is warranted or the FAA is open 24 hours to approve alternative parts for in-house repair by the operator. Those words are located in the following sentence in the “Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM: “Any use of parts (including the use of parts manufacturer approval
(PMA)approved parts), methods, techniques, and practices not contained in the CMMs needs to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority.” ANA states that in some cases the parts specified in the CMMs cannot be obtained from the parts market or directly from the component vendor, so an operator is forced into using alternative parts to keep its schedule. ANA requests that we direct the component vendor to ensure a continuous supply of CMM parts and to direct the component vendor to remedy a lack of parts if parts are not promptly supplied. ANA further requests that we direct the component vendor to promptly review the standard parts and allow use of alternative fasteners and washers listed in Boeing D590. ANA asserts that, in some cases, a component vendor specifies an uncommon part to preserve its monopoly. We disagree with revising the “Changes to CMMs Cited in Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM. We make every effort to identify potential problems with the parts supply, and we are not aware of any problems at this time. The impetus to declare overhaul and repair of certain fuel tank system components as CDCCLs arose from in-service pump failures that resulted from repairs not done according to OEM procedures. We have approved the use of the CMMs—including parts, methods, techniques, and practices—at the revision levels specified in Revision March 2008 of the MPD. Third-party spare parts, such as parts approved by PMA, have not been reviewed. An operator may submit a request to the Seattle ACO, or governing regulatory authority, for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that use of an alternative part would provide an acceptable level of safety. The CDCCLs do not restrict where repairs can be performed, so an operator may do the work in-house as long as the approved CMMs are followed. If operators would like to change those procedures, they can request approval of the changes. The FAA makes every effort to respond to operators' requests in a timely manner. If there is a potential for disrupting the flight schedule, the operator should include that information in its request. Operators should request approval for the use of PMA parts and alternative procedures from the FAA or the governing regulatory authority in advance in order to limit schedule disruptions. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Identify Other Test Equipment JAL states that certain test equipment is designated in the MPD and that additional equipment should also be designated. For example, AWL No. 28-AWL-03 would require using loop resistance tester, part number (P/N) 906-10246-2 or -3. Therefore, JAL requests that we also identify alternative test equipment, so that operators do not need to seek an AMOC to use other equipment. We disagree with identifying other test equipment. We cannot identify every possible piece of test equipment. We ensure that some are listed as recommended by the manufacturer. With substantiating data, operators can request approval of an alternative tester from the Seattle ACO, or the governing regulatory agency. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Request To Clarify AWL No. 28-AWL-02 JAL requests that we clarify the intent of AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL states that Chapters 53-21 and 53-01 of the Boeing AMM specify doing an inspection of the external wires over the center fuel tank according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing tank based on AWL No. 28-AWL-02. JAL also states that, according to Revision March 2006 of the MPD, AWL No. 28-AWL-02 contains two limitations: maintaining the existing wire bundle routing and clamping, and installing any new wire bundle per the Boeing standard wiring practices manual (SWPM). Therefore, JAL believes it is not necessary to inspect the external wires over the center fuel tank according to AMM 28-11-00 before installing the floor panel over the center wing tank, unless that wire bundle routing and clamping are changed. We point out that AWL No. 28-AWL-02 also contains a third limitation: verifying that all wire bundles over the center fuel tank are inspected according to AWL No. 28-AWL-01, which refers to AMM 28-11-00 for accomplishing the inspection. We do not agree that the inspection should be required only if the wire bundle routing and clamping are changed while maintenance is accomplished in the area. If any of the other bundles have a clamp or routing failure, it must be detected and corrected. After accomplishing the inspection required by AWL No. 28-AWL-01, an operator would not need to repeat the inspection for another 12 years. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard. Request for Clarification for Recording Compliance With CDCCLs JAL requests that we clarify the following sentence: “An entry into an operator's existing maintenance record system for corrective action is sufficient for recording compliance with CDCCLs, as long as the applicable maintenance manual and task cards identify actions that are CDCCLs.” That sentence is located in the “Recording Compliance with Fuel Tank System AWLs” section of the NPRM. Specifically, JAL asks whether an operator must indicate the CDCCL in their recording documents or whether it is sufficient for the recording document to call out the applicable AMMs that are tied to the CDCCLs. We have coordinated with the FAA Flight Standards Service and it agrees that, for U.S.-registered airplanes, if the applicable AMMs and task cards identify the CDCCL, then the entry into the recording documents does not need to identify the CDCCL. However, if the applicable AMMs and tasks cards do not identify the CDCCL, then they must be identified. Other methods may be accepted by the appropriate FAA PMI or PAI, or governing regulatory authority. 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 596 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Maintenance program revision 8 None $640 57 $36,480 Initial accomplishment of AWL 28-AWL-01 6 None 480 57 27,360 Initial accomplishment of AWL 28-AWL-03 32 None 2,560 57 145,920 Initial accomplishment of AWL 28-AWL-10 2 None 180 57 9,120 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: **2008-10-06 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15512. Docket No. FAA-2007-28386; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-162-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes, certificated in any category; with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued before April 12, 2006. Note 1: Airplanes with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after April 12, 2006, must be already in compliance with the airworthiness limitations specified in this AD because those limitations were applicable as part of the airworthiness certification of those airplanes. Note 2: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)according to paragraph
(l)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Information Reference
(f)The term “Revision March 2008 of the MPD,” as used in this AD, means Boeing Temporary Revision
(TR)09-010, dated March 2008. Boeing TR 09-010 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D621U400-9, Revision March 2008. Maintenance Program Revision
(g)Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating the information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD; except that the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance times specified in Table 1. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(1)Subsection B, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS (AWLs)—SYSTEMS,” of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
(2)Subsection C, “PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” of Revision March 2008 of the MPD.
(3)Subsection D, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-23 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-24 through No. 28-AWL-29 inclusive, as identified in Subsection D of Revision March 2008 of the MPD, also may be incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance program. Initial Inspections and Repair if Necessary
(h)Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with Subsection D of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. The repair must be done before further flight. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Accomplishing the inspections identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of an FAA-approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” Table 1.—Initial Inspections AWL No. Description Compliance time (whichever occurs later) Threshold Grace period 28-AWL-01 A detailed inspection of external wires over the center fuel tank for damaged or loose clamps, wire chafing, and wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel tank. Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD. 28-AWL-03 A special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indicating system to verify functional integrity. Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. 28-AWL-10 A special detailed inspection of the fault current bond of the fueling shutoff valve actuator of the center wing tank to verify electrical bond. Within 144 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness. Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD. Incorporation of Additional AWLs for Certain Airplanes
(i)For Model 747-400 series airplanes equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank: Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-30, No. 28-AWL-31, and No. 28-AWL-32 of Subsection D of Revision March 2008 of the MPD. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)
(j)After accomplishing the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i)of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision March 2008 of the MPD that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the MPD
(k)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 MPD Document, D621U400-9, Revision 23, dated March 2006; Revision 24, dated June 2006; Revision November 2006; Revision December 2006; Revision December 2006 R1; Revision May 2007; Revision October 2007; or Revision November 2007; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD. 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.
(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
(m)You must use Boeing Temporary Revision 09-010, dated March 2008, to the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D621U400-9, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Boeing Temporary Revision 09-010 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 747-400 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD)Document, D621U400-9, Revision March 2008.
(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 28, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9897 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0045; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-169-AD; Amendment 39-15501; AD 2008-09-20] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes. This AD requires a detailed inspection to detect missing fasteners from the shear clip at a certain stub frame to auxiliary sill joint, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This AD results from reports of missing fasteners from the shear clip of the stub frame to auxiliary sill joint and cracking of the adjacent exterior skin and internal doubler. We are issuing this AD to ensure that fasteners are installed in the shear clip of the stub frame to auxiliary sill joint. Missing fasteners could result in cracks in the adjacent exterior skin and internal doubler, which can propagate and result in loss of structural integrity and sudden in-flight decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12, 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: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; 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 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 17, 2007 (72 FR 58768). That NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection to detect missing fasteners from the shear clip at a certain stub frame to auxiliary sill joint, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. New Service Bulletin Revision Since we issued the NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, Revision 1, dated March 13, 2008. Revision 1 clarifies certain figures and part and material content. No additional work is necessary for airplanes on which the actions have been done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, dated May 31, 2007 (referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified in the NPRM). We have revised paragraphs (c), (f), and
(g)of this AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, Revision 1, dated March 13, 2008. We have added a new paragraph
(h)of this AD to give credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD according to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, dated May 31, 2007, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs of the AD accordingly. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received from two commenters. Boeing requested that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, Revision 1, dated March 13, 2008, be used instead of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, dated May 31, 2007. All Nippon Airways requested clarification of technical information in the NPRM. These requests have been addressed in Revision 1 of the service bulletin, which is cited in the final rule. 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 98 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 8 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $640, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings 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: **2008-09-20 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15501. Docket No. FAA-2007-0045; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-169-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective June 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, Revision 1, dated March 13, 2008. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from two reports of cracks found in the exterior skin and internal doubler adjacent to the shear clip at the stub frame to auxiliary sill joint at stringer 30 (left and right sides), body station
(BS)488. In addition, on one of the airplanes, seven fasteners were missing from the shear clip on the left side of the airplane. The cause of the missing fasteners has been attributed to a manufacturing process error. We are issuing this AD to ensure fasteners in the shear clip of the stub frame to auxiliary sill joints (left and right sides) are installed. Missing fasteners could result in cracks in the adjacent exterior skin and internal doubler, which can propagate and result in loss of structural integrity and sudden in-flight decompression of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection and Applicable Related Investigative and Corrective Actions
(f)At the applicable compliance time and repeat intervals listed in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, Revision 1, dated March 13, 2008; except where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection and applicable related investigative and corrective actions by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Repair of Cracks
(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, Revision 1, dated March 13, 2008, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done Using the Previous Service Information
(h)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, dated May 31, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. Material Incorporated by Reference
(j)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2685, Revision 1, dated March 13, 2008, 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 23, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-9894 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0067; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-98] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rockport, ME AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 9442) that establishes Class E Airspace at Rockport, ME to support a new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Penobscot Bay Medical Center. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9442), Docket No. FAA-2008-0067; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-98. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 18, 2008. John D. Haley, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-9848 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0060; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-91] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Swans Island, ME AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 9183) that establishes Class E Airspace at Swans Island, ME to support a new Area Navigation
(RNAV)Global Positioning System
(GPS)Special Instrument Approach Procedure
(IAP)that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Swans Island Heliport. DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Confirmation of Effective Date The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9183), Docket No. FAA-2008 0060; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-91. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non- controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 18, 2008. Lynda G. Otting, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-9850 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 774 [Docket No. 080307395-8515-01] RIN 0694-AE32 Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations Based Upon a Systematic Review of the CCL; Correction AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security published a final rule in the **Federal Register** on April 18, 2008 (73 FR 21035), that amended the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR)to make various technical corrections and clarifications to the EAR as a result of a systematic review of the CCL. The amendments in that final rule included a revision to the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section of Export Control Classification Number
(ECCN)9A004. However, because of an inadvertent formatting error in a rule published on March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13338), the “Related Controls” paragraph in that CCL entry appeared to be a part of the “Unit” paragraph. This resulted in the inadvertent removal of the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section of that ECCN entry when the “Unit” paragraph was revised with the publication of the April 18, 2008, rule. Today's rule corrects that inadvertent removal by adding the “Related Controls” paragraph back into that ECCN entry. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective: May 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AE32, by any of the following methods: *E-mail: publiccomments@bis.doc.gov* . Include “RIN 0694-AE32” in the subject line of the message. *Fax:*
(202)482-3355. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division, by calling
(202)482-2440, if you are faxing comments. *Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:* Timothy Mooney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, *Attn:* RIN 0694-AE32. Send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , or by fax to
(202)395-7285; and to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230. Comments on this collection of information should be submitted separately from comments on the final rule (i.e. RIN 0694-AE32)—all comments on the latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Mooney, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce; by telephone:
(202)482-2440; or by fax: 202-482-3355. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 18, 2008, the final rule, Technical Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations based upon a Systematic Review of the CCL was published in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 21035). The amendments in that final rule included a revision to the “Unit” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section of Export Control Classification Number
(ECCN)9A004. The changes made in the April 18 rule made *no* changes to the “Related Controls” paragraph of that ECCN entry. However, because of an inadvertent formatting error that occurred in a final rule published on March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13338), the “Related Controls” paragraph appeared to be a part of the “Unit” paragraph, which resulted in the inadvertent removal of the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section when the “Unit” paragraph was revised with the publication of the April 18, 2008, rule. The formatting issue involved the “Related Controls” paragraph not appearing on its own line in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)and the “Related Controls” heading not being italicized. This rule corrects those inadvertent formatting errors from the 1999 rule that were compounded with the publication of the April 18 rule, by adding the “Related Controls” paragraph back into ECCN 9A004. Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Rulemaking Requirements 1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* .). This collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132. 4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. The changes made by this rule are not substantive changes, but rather are updates to cross-references, conformance of units of measure to item descriptions, and removal of outdated references. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are not applicable. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 774 Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 774—[CORRECTED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 774 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 *et seq.* ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 *et seq.* , 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007). 2. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 9—Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles and Related Equipment, Export Control Classification Number
(ECCN)9A004 is amended by adding the “Related Controls” paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as follows: Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—The Commerce Control List 9A004 Space launch vehicles and “spacecraft”. List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* (1.) See also 9A104. (2.) Space launch vehicles are under the jurisdiction of the Department of State. (3.) Effective March 15, 1999, all satellites, including commercial communications satellites, are subject to the ITAR. Effective March 15, 1999, all license applications for the export of commercial communications satellites will be processed by the State Department, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. Retransfer of jurisdiction for commercial communications satellites and related items shall not affect the validity of any export license issued by the Department of Commerce prior to March 15, 1999, or of any export license application filed under the Export Administration Regulations on or before March 14, 1999, and subsequently issued by the Department of Commerce. Commercial communications satellites licensed by the Department of Commerce, including those already exported, remain subject to the EAR and all terms and conditions of issued export licenses until their stated expiration date. All licenses issued by the Department of Commerce for commercial communications satellites, including licenses issued after March 15, 1999, remain subject to SI controls throughout the validity of the license. Effective March 15, 1999, Department of State jurisdiction shall apply to any instance where a replacement license would normally be required from the Department of Commerce. Transferring registration or operational control to any foreign person of any item controlled by this entry must be authorized on a license issued by the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. This requirement applies whether the item is physically located in the United States or abroad. (4.) All other “spacecraft” not controlled under 9A004 and their payloads, and specifically designed or modified components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment, including ground support equipment, are subject to the export licensing authority of the Department of State unless otherwise transferred to the Department of Commerce via a commodity jurisdiction determination by the Department of State. (5.) Exporters requesting a license from the Department of Commerce for “spacecraft” and their associated parts and components, other than the international space station, must provide a statement from the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, verifying that the item intended for export is under the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce. All specially designed or modified components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for “spacecraft” that have been determined by the Department of State through the commodity jurisdiction process to be under the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce and that are not controlled by any other ECCN on the Commerce Control List will be assigned a classification under this ECCN 9A004. (6.) Technical data required for the detailed design, development, manufacturing, or production of the international space station (to include specifically designed parts and components) remains under the jurisdiction of the Department of State. This control by the ITAR of detailed design, development, manufacturing or production technology for NASA's international space station does not include that level of technical data necessary and reasonable for assurance that a U.S.-built item intended to operate on NASA's international space station has been designed, manufactured, and tested in conformance with specified requirements (e.g., operational performance, reliability, lifetime, product quality, or delivery expectations). All technical data and all defense services, including all technical assistance, for launch of the international space station, including launch vehicle compatibility, integration, or processing data, are controlled and subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of State, in accordance with 22 CFR parts 120 through 130. Eileen Albanese, Director, Office of Exporter Services. [FR Doc. E8-10309 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 403 [Docket No. SSA-2007-0077] RIN 0960-AG76 Testimony by Employees and the Production of Records and Information in Legal Proceedings; Change of Address for Requests AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Our regulations describe when a Social Security Administration
(SSA)employee will testify or provide records or other information in a legal proceeding to which we are not a party. The regulations also describe how you request testimony of an SSA employee. This final rule updates the address you should use to request testimony of an SSA employee. DATES: This final rule is effective May 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Sussman, Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401. Call
(410)965-1767 for further information about these rules. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet Web site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Why are we revising our rules on requesting testimony of an SSA employee? Our regulations at 20 CFR Part 403 describe when an SSA employee will testify or provide records or other information in a legal proceeding to which we are not a party. The regulations also describe how you request testimony of an SSA employee. At 20 CFR 403.120(c), we provide a post office box address for you to use to request testimony of an SSA employee. The address has changed; therefore, we are updating the regulations to reflect the new address. We are not making any substantive changes to the regulations. Regulatory Procedures Justification for Final Rule As required by section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), we follow the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 in developing regulations. The APA provides that prior notice and public comment is not required when an agency finds good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), good cause exists here because this final rule only updates the address to be used for requesting testimony of an SSA employee. It makes no substantive changes to the regulations. Therefore, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing this revision as a final rule. In addition, we find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As explained above, we are not making any substantive changes to the regulations. Without the correct address, there could be a delay in receiving these requests for testimony of an SSA employee. In order to ensure that we continue to receive these requests timely, we find that it is in the public interest to make this final rule effective on the date of publication. Executive Order 12866 We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Thus, it was not subject to OMB review. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act These regulations describe the procedures for an individual to request testimony of an SSA employee. The application for testimony is a paperwork burden that requires clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. SSA has already cleared the burden contained in 20 CFR 413.120 under OMB Number 0960-0619, and there is no change. Consequently, we are showing a 1-hour placeholder for the paperwork burden for this rule. An Information Collection Request has been submitted to OMB for clearance. We are soliciting comments on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to OMB by fax or by e-mail to: Office of Management and Budget, *Attn:* Desk Office for SSA, *Fax Number:* 202-395-6974, *E-mail address:* *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov* . Comments on the paperwork burdens associated with this rule can be received for up to 30 days after publication of this notice. When OMB has approved these information collection requirements, SSA will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** . To receive a copy of the OMB clearance package, please contact the Reports Clearance Officer at *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security-Retirement Insurance; 96.004 Social Security-Survivors Insurance; 96.005 Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners; 96.006 Supplemental Security Income; and 96.020 Special Benefits for Certain World War II Veterans) List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 403 Courts, Government employees. Dated: April 30, 2008. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 403 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 403—TESTIMONY BY EMPLOYEES AND THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 1. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5) and 1106 of the Act, (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5) and 1306); 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 9701. 2. In § 403.120, revise paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 403.120 How do you request testimony?
(c)You must send your application for testimony to: Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Office of General Law, Suite No. 56, P.O. Box 26430, Baltimore, Maryland 21207, Attn: Touhy Officer. (If you are requesting testimony of an employee of the Office of the Inspector General, send your application to the address in § 403.125.) [FR Doc. E8-10256 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0278] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Delaware River, Big Timber Creek, Westville, NJ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations during the “Westville Parade of Lights”, a marine parade to be held on the waters of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek, Westville, NJ. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in a small portion of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek during the event. DATES: This rule is effective from 7 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0278 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District, Prevention Division,
(757)398-6204. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the event. The necessary information to determine whether the marine event poses a threat to persons and vessels was not provided with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. The potential dangers posed by a marine parade formation transiting the waterway with other vessel traffic at night makes special local regulations necessary to provide for the safety of participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. The Coast Guard will issue broadcast notice to mariners to advise vessel operators of navigational restrictions. On scene Coast Guard and local law enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice to mariners. Background and Purpose On June 28, 2008, the Borough of Westville, New Jersey and the Westville Power Boat Association will sponsor the “Westville Parade of Lights”. Approximately 20 power and sailing vessels will participate in a marine parade that will begin formation in the vicinity of the Route 130 Bridge and transit Big Timber Creek and terminate where the waterway joins the Delaware River. The event will also include a fireworks display launched from land, with a fallout area extending over the navigable waters of Big Timber Creek, Westville, NJ. Spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the on water activity. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard will establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 7 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 28, 2008. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the marine event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of specific enforcement times by marine radio safety broadcast. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic from transiting a small portion of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. Notice to the public may also be conveyed by local area newspapers, radio and TV stations so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this segment of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek during the event. This temporary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 7 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 28, 2008. Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a small segment of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek during the event, this temporary rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Vessel traffic may be able to transit around the regulated area or when event activity is halted, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways. Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-0278 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-0278 Delaware River, Big Timber Creek Westville, NJ.
(a)*Regulated area* includes all waters of Big Timber Creek, shore line to shore line from the Route 130 Bridge northwest to the waterway entrance where Big Timber Creek joins the Delaware River.
(b)*Definitions* :
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the Westville Parade of Lights under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
(c)*Special local regulations* :
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii)Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event area.
(d)*Enforcement period* . This section will be enforced from 7 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 28, 2008. A notice of enforcement of this section will be disseminated through the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners announcing the specific event date and times. Notice will also be made via broadcast notice to mariners on VHF-FM marine band radio. Dated: April 16, 2008. Neil O. Buschman, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, Acting. [FR Doc. E8-10227 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0277] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations during the “First Annual Safe Boating Day”, a water safety demonstration to be held on the waters of the Delaware River adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic between the Walt Whitman and Benjamin Franklin bridges in the Delaware River during the event. DATES: This rule is effective from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0277 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District, Prevention Division,
(757)398-6204. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the event. The necessary information to determine whether the marine event poses a threat to persons and vessels was not provided with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. The danger posed by on the water fire and rescue demonstrations makes special local regulations necessary to provide for the safety of spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. The Coast Guard will issue broadcast notice to mariners to advise vessel operators of navigational restrictions. On scene Coast Guard and local law enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice to mariners. Background and Purpose On June 1, 2008, the Penn's Landing Corporation will sponsor the “First Annual Safe Boating Day”. Various on the water fire-rescue and tug boat demonstrations will be staged in close proximity to Penn's Landing on the Delaware River. The demonstrations will generally take place in the vicinity between the shoreline and the navigational channel. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the on water activity. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard will establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Delaware River. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 1, 2008. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the marine event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. Notice will be provided to the public through a Local Notice to Mariners published before the event, as well as through Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of specific enforcement times by marine radio safety broadcast VHF-FM marine band radio. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the Delaware River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and local area newspapers, radio and TV stations so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Delaware River during the event. This temporary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 1, 2008. Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a small segment of the Delaware River during the event, this temporary rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Vessel traffic may be able to transit around the regulated area or when event activity is halted, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways. Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-0277 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-0277 Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA.
(a)*Regulated area* includes all waters of the Delaware River bounded from shore to shore, bounded to the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded to the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.
(b)*Definitions:*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the First Annual Safe Boating Day under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
(c)*Special local regulations:*
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii)Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event area.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 1, 2008. A notice of enforcement of this section will be disseminated through the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners announcing the specific event date and times. Notice will also be made via broadcast notice to mariners on VHF-FM marine band radio. Dated: April 16, 2008. Neil O. Buschman, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, Acting. [FR Doc. E8-10228 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0147] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations to regulate recurring marine events in the Fifth Coast Guard District. These regulations apply to all permitted events listed in the table attached to the regulation, and include events such as regattas, and marine parades. These regulations reduce the Coast Guard's administrative workload and expedite public notification of events. DATES: This rule is effective June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-0147 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* This material is also available for inspection or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Fifth Coast Guard District Office, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District, Prevention Division, at 757-398-6204 or e-mail at *Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil.* If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On March 10, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)entitled Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 12669). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose Marine events are frequently held on the navigable waters within the boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. For a description of the geographical area of each Coast Guard Sector—Captain of the Port Zone, please see 33 CFR 3.25. This regulation includes events such as sailing regattas, power boat races, swim races and holiday parades. Currently, there are 57 annually recurring marine events and many other non-recurring events within the district. In the past, the Coast Guard regulated these events by creating individual special local regulations on a case by case basis. Most of these events required only the establishment of a regulated area and assignment of a patrol commander to ensure safety. Issuing individual, annual special local regulations has created a significant administrative burden on the Coast Guard. From 2005 to 2007 the Coast Guard created over 100 temporary regulations for marine events in the Fifth District. The numbers are expected to increase in 2008 with the growing popularity of water sports activities. Additionally, for the majority of these events, the Coast Guard does not receive notification of the event, or important details of the event are not finalized by event organizers, with sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and final rule before the event date. The Coast Guard must therefore create temporary final rules that sometimes are not completed until only days before the event. This results in delayed notification to the public, potentially placing the public and event participants at risk. This rule significantly reduces the administrative burden on the Coast Guard, and at the same time allows the sponsor of the event and the Coast Guard to notify the public of these events in a timely manner. The public will be provided with notice of events through the table attached to this regulation. This table lists each recurring event that may be regulated by the Coast Guard, and indicates the sponsor, as well as the date and location of the event. Because the dates and location of these events may change slightly from year to year, the specific information on each event, including the exact dates, specific areas, and description of the regulated area, would be provided to the public through a Local Notice to Mariners published before the event, as well as through Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This table will also be updated by the Coast Guard periodically to add new recurring events, remove events that no longer occur, and update listed events to ensure accurate information is provided. The public will also be notified about many of the listed marine events by local newspapers, radio and television stations. The various methods of notification provided by the Coast Guard and local community media outlets will facilitate informing mariners so they can adjust their plans accordingly. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard has made some minor technical revisions to this rule. Revisions to the regulatory text include the following items. In the Table to § 100.501, marine event No. 3 was deleted. In its place “Night in Venice” Great Egg Harbor Bay, Ocean City, New Jersey was added as marine event No. 3. This event was previously regulated by 33 CFR 100.504 for the same location. This revision does not impose any additional restrictions on vessel traffic. In the Table to § 100.501, the location description for marine event No's 31, 32, 35 and 49 were revised. All four marine events take place in the same location in the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, Virginia. The location was revised to reduce the overall size of the regulated area. This revision does not impose any additional restrictions on vessel traffic. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of this action merely establishes the dates on which the existing regulations would be enforced and consolidates them within one regulation. It would not impose any additional restrictions on vessel traffic. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas where marine events are being held. This regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will be enforced only during marine events that have been permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring. Additionally, in most cases, vessels will be able to safely transit around the regulated area at all times, and, with the permission of the Patrol Commander, vessels may transit through the regulated area. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category of paragraph 34(h) because it creates special local regulations for regattas and marine parades. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 2. Revise section 100.501 and add a new § 100.501 to read as follows: § 100.501 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District. The following regulations apply to the marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. These regulations will be effective annually, for the duration of each event listed in the Table to § 100.501. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulation with respect to each event, the geographical area, and details concerning the nature of the event and the number of participants and type(s) of vessels involved will be published in Local Notices to Mariners and via Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.
(a)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section:
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander.* A Patrol Commander is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the respective Coast Guard Sector—Captain of the Port to enforce these regulations.
(2)*Official Patrol.* Any vessel assigned or approved by the respective Captain of the Port with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Spectators.* All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
(b)*Event Patrol.* The Coast Guard may assign an event patrol, as described in § 100.40 of this part, to each regulated event listed in the table. Additionally, a Patrol Commander may be assigned to oversee the patrol. The event patrol and Patrol Commander may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16.
(c)*Special Local Regulations.*
(1)The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area(s). When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel in these areas shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(2)The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(3)Only event sponsor designated participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area.
(4)Spectators are allowed inside the regulated area only if they remain within a designated spectator area. Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area at safe speed and without loitering.
(d)*Contact Information.* Questions about marine events should be addressed to the local Coast Guard Captain of the Port for the area in which the event is occurring. Contact information is listed below. For a description of the geographical area of each Coast Guard Sector—Captain of the Port zone, please see subpart 3.25 of this chapter.
(1)Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—Captain of the Port Zone, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
(215)271-4944.
(2)Coast Guard Sector Baltimore—Captain of the Port Zone, Baltimore, Maryland:
(410)576-2525.
(3)Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—Captain of the Port Zone, Norfolk, Virginia:
(757)483-8567.
(4)Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—Captain of the Port Zone, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina:
(252)247-4545.
(5)Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Wilmington—Cape Fear River Captain of the Port Zone, Wilmington, North Carolina:
(910)772-2200.
(e)*Application for Marine Events.* The application requirements of § 100.15 of this part apply to all events listed in the Table to § 100.501. For information on applying for a marine event, contact the Captain of the Port for the area in which the event will occur, at the phone numbers listed above. Table To § 100.501.—All Coordinates Listed in the Table to § 100.501 Reference Datum NAD 1983 No. Date Event Sponsor Location Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—COTP Zone 1 June—1st Sunday Atlantic County Day at the Bay Atlantic County, New Jersey The waters of Great Egg Harbor Bay, adjacent to Somers Point, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn along the following boundaries: The area is bounded to the north by the shoreline along John F. Kennedy Park and Somers Point, New Jersey; bounded to the east by the State Route 52 bridge; bounded to the south by a line that runs along latitude 39°18′00″ N; and bounded to the west by a line that runs along longitude 074°37′00″ W. 2 June—3rd Saturday Annual Escape from Fort Delaware Triathlon Escape from Fort Delaware Triathlon, Inc All waters of the Delaware River between Pea Patch Island and Delaware City, Delaware, bounded by a line connecting the following points: Latitude 39°36′35.7″ N, longitude 075°35′25.6″ W, to latitude 39°34′57.3″ N, longitude 075°33′23.1″ W, to latitude 39°34′11.9″ N, longitude 075°34′28.6″ W, to latitude 39°35′52.4″ N, longitude 075°36′33.9″ W. 3 July—4th Saturday Night in Venice City of Ocean City, NJ, Night in Venice Committee The waters of Great Egg Harbor Bay and Beach Thorofare along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), adjacent to Ocean City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn at the following points: Bounded to the north by a line that runs along longitude 074°33′35″ W, that crosses the ICW in the vicinity of the northern end of the Great Egg Harbor Inlet bridge; bounded to the south by a line that runs along longitude 074°36′30″ W, that crosses the ICW in the vicinity of day beacon #270. The regulated area includes the ICW between the northern and southern boundaries and 100 yards on either side of the ICW centerline. 4 July—On or about July 4th U.S. holiday celebrations City of Philadelphia The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA, and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. 5 August—2nd Friday, Saturday and Sunday Point Pleasant OPA/NJ Offshore Grand Prix Offshore Performance Association
(OPA)and New Jersey Offshore Racing Assn The waters of the Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn from a position along the shoreline near Normandy Beach, NJ, at latitude 40°00′00″ N, longitude 074°03′30″ W, thence easterly to latitude 39°59′40″ N, longitude 074°02′00″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°56′35″ N, longitude 074°03′00″ W, thence westerly to a position near the Seaside Heights Pier at latitude 39°56′35″ N, longitude 074°04′15″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin. 6 July—3rd Wednesday and Thursday New Jersey Offshore Grand Prix Offshore Performance Assn. & New Jersey Offshore Racing Assn The waters of the Manasquan River from the New York and Long Branch Railroad to Manasquan Inlet, together with all of the navigable waters of the United States from Asbury Park, New Jersey, latitude 40°14′00″ N; southward to Seaside Park, New Jersey latitude 39°55′00″ N, from the New Jersey shoreline seaward to the limits of the Territorial Sea. The race course area extends from Asbury Park to Seaside Park from the shoreline, seaward to a distance of 8.4 nautical miles. 7 August—4th Wednesday Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air show Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce The waters of the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: Southeasterly from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W, thence to latitude 39°21′08″ N, longitude 074°24′48″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°20′16″ N, longitude 074°27′17″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′44″ N, longitude 074°27′31″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W. 8 September—3rd Saturday Annual Escape from Fort Delaware Triathlon Escape from Fort Delaware Triathlon, Inc All waters of the Delaware River between Pea Patch Island and Delaware City, Delaware, bounded by a line connecting the following points: Latitude 39°36′35.7″ N, longitude 075°35′25.6″ W, to latitude 39°34′57.3″ N, longitude 075°33′23.1″ W, to latitude 39°34′11.9″ N, longitude 075°34′28.6″ W, to latitude 39°35′52.4″ N, longitude 075°36′33.9″ W. 9 September—last Friday, Saturday and Sunday; October—first Friday, Saturday and Sunday Sunset Lake Hydrofest Sunset Lake Hydrofest Assn All waters of Sunset Lake, New Jersey, from shoreline to shoreline, south of latitude 38°58′32″ N. 10 October—2nd Saturday and Sunday The Liberty Grand Prix Offshore Performance Assn.
(OPA)The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA, and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. 11 October—1st Monday (Columbus Day) U.S. holiday celebrations City of Philadelphia The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA, and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. 12 December—On December 31st (New Year's Eve) U.S. holiday celebrations City of Philadelphia The waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Philadelphia, PA, and Camden, NJ, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore—COTP Zone 13 March—4th or last Saturday Safety at Sea Seminar U.S. Naval Academy All waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn from the south shoreline at latitude 39°00′38.9″ N., longitude 076°31′05.2″ W. thence to the north shoreline at latitude 39°00′54.7″ N., longitude 076°30′44.8″ W., this line is approximately 1300 yards northwest of the U.S. 50 fixed highway bridge. The regulated area is bounded to the southeast by a line drawn from the Naval Academy Light at latitude 38°58′39.5″ N., longitude 076°28′49″ W., thence southeast to a point 700 yards east of Chinks Point, MD, at latitude 38°58′1.9″ N., longitude 076°28′1.7″ W., thence northeast to Greenbury Point at latitude 38°58′29″ N., longitude 076°27′16″ W. 14 March—last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; April and May—every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday USNA Crew Races U.S. Naval Academy All waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn from the south shoreline at latitude 39°00′38.9″ N., longitude 076°31′05.2″ W. thence to the north shoreline at latitude 39°00′54.7″ N., longitude 076°30′44.8″ W., this line is approximately 1300 yards northwest of the U.S. 50 fixed highway bridge. The regulated area is bounded to the southeast by a line drawn from the Naval Academy Light at latitude 38°58′39.5″ N., longitude 076°28′49″ W. thence southeast to a point 700 yards east of Chinks Point, MD, at latitude 38°58′1.9″ N., longitude 076°28′1.7″ W. thence northeast to Greenbury Point at latitude 38°58′29″ N., longitude 076°27′16″ W. 15 April—2nd Saturday St. Mary's Seahawk Sprint St. Mary's College of Maryland All waters of the St. Mary's River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the south by a line at latitude 38°10′05″ N, and bounded to the north by a line at latitude 38°12′00″ N. 16 May—1st Sunday Nanticoke River Swim and Triathlon Nanticoke River Swim and Triathlon, Inc All waters of the Nanticoke River, including Bivalve Channel and Bivalve Harbor, bounded by a line drawn from a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°18′00″ N, longitude 075°54′00″ W, thence westerly to latitude 38°18′00″ N, longitude 075°55′00″ W, thence northerly to latitude 38°20′00″ N, longitude 075°53′48″ W, thence easterly to latitude 38°19′42″ N, longitude 075°52′54″ W. 17 May—2nd Saturday and Sunday Baltimore County Community Waterfront Festival Baltimore County All waters of Martin Lagoon that are north of a line drawn from latitude 39°19′34″ N, longitude 076°25′41″ W, thence to a position located at 39°19′33″ N, longitude 076°25′33″ W. 18 May—3rd Friday, Saturday, and Sunday Dragon Boat Races at Thompson Boathouse, Georgetown, Washington, DC Dragon Boat Festival, Inc The waters of the Upper Potomac River, Washington, DC, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded upstream by the Francis Scott Key Bridge and downstream by the Roosevelt Memorial Bridge. 19 May—3rd Tuesday and Wednesday Blue Angels Air Show U.S. Naval Academy All waters of the Severn River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn from the south shoreline at latitude 39°00′38.9″ N., longitude 076°31′05.2″ W. thence to the north shoreline at latitude 39°00′54.7″ N., longitude 076°30′44.8″ W., this line is approximately 1300 yards northwest of the U.S. 50 fixed highway bridge. The regulated area is bounded to the southeast by a line drawn from the Naval Academy Light at latitude 38°58′39.5″ N., longitude 076°28′49″ W. thence southeast to a point 700 yards east of Chinks Point, MD, at latitude 38°58′1.9″ N., longitude 076°28′1.7″ W. thence northeast to Greenbury Point at latitude 38°58′29″ N., longitude 076°27′16″ W. 20 June—2nd Sunday The Great Chesapeake Bay Bridges Swim Races and Chesapeake Challenge One Mile Swim Great Chesapeake Bay Swim, Inc The waters of the Chesapeake Bay between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge shore to shore 500 yards north of the north span of the bridge from the western shore at latitude 39°00′36″ N, longitude 076°23′05″ W and the eastern shore at latitude 38°59′14″ N, longitude 076°20′00″ W, and 500 yards south of the south span of the bridge from the western shore at latitude 39°00′16″ N, longitude 076°24′30″ W and the eastern shore at latitude 38°58′38.5″ N, longitude 076°20′06″ W. 21 June—3rd Saturday or July—3rd Saturday Maryland Swim for Life District of Columbia Aquatics Club The waters of the Chester River from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line drawn at latitude 39°10′16″ N, near the Chester River Channel Buoy 35 (LLN-26795) and bounded on the north at latitude 39°12′30″ N by the Maryland S.R. 213 Highway Bridge. 22 June—last Saturday and Sunday Bo Bowman Memorial—Sharptown Regatta Virginia/Carolina Racing Assn All waters of the Nanticoke River, near Sharptown, Maryland, between Maryland S.R. 313 Highway Bridge and Nanticoke River Light 43 (LLN-24175), bounded by a line drawn between the following points: Southeasterly from latitude 38°32′46″ N, longitude 075°43′14″ W, to latitude 38°32′42″ N, longitude 075°43′09″ W, thence northeasterly to latitude 38°33′04″ N, longitude 075°42′39″ W, thence northwesterly to latitude 38°33′09″ N, longitude 075°42′44″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 38°32′46″ N, longitude 075°43′14″ W. 23 August—1st Saturday and Sunday Thunder on the Narrows Kent Narrows Racing Assn All waters of Prospect Bay enclosed by the following points: Latitude 38°57′52.0″ N, longitude 076°14′48.0″ W, to latitude 38°58′02.0″ N, longitude 076°15′05.0″ W, to latitude 38°57′38.0″ N, longitude 076°15′29.0″ W, to latitude 38°57′28.0″ N, longitude 076°15′23.0″ W, to latitude 38°57′52.0″ N, longitude 076°14′48.0″ W. 24 Labor Day weekend —Saturday and Sunday, or Monday Annual Ragin on the River Port Deposit, MD, Chamber of Commerce The waters of the Susquehanna River, adjacent to Port Deposit, Maryland, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by the U.S. I-95 fixed highway bridge, and bounded on the north by a line running southwesterly from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°36′22″ N, longitude 076°07′08″ W, thence to latitude 39°36′00″ N, longitude 076°07′46″ W. 25 September—2nd Saturday Dragon Boat Races in the Inner Harbor Associated Catholic Charities, Inc The waters of the Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD, Inner Harbor from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the east by a line drawn along longitude 076°36′30″ W. 26 September—2nd Sunday Annapolis Triathlon Swim City of Annapolis and the Annapolis Triathlon Club The approaches to Annapolis Harbor, the waters of Spa Creek, and the Severn River, shore to shore, bounded on the south by a line drawn from Carr Point, at latitude 38°58′58.0″ N, longitude 076°27′40.0″ W, thence to Horn Point Warning Light (LLNR-17935), at 38°58′24.0″ N, longitude 076°28′10.0″ W, thence to Horn Point, at 38°58′20.0″ N, longitude 076°28′27.0″ W, and bounded on the north by the State Route 450 Bridge. 27 September—4th or last Saturday and Sunday Cambridge Offshore Challenge Chesapeake Bay Powerboat Association All waters of the Choptank River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the west by the Route 50 Bridge and bounded to the east by a line drawn along longitude 076° W, between Goose Point, MD, and Oystershell Point, MD. 28 September—last Saturday Chesapeakeman Ultra Triathlon Columbia Triathlon Assn. Inc All waters of the Choptank River within 200 yards either side of a line drawn northwesterly from a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°33′45″ N, longitude 076°02′38″ W, thence to latitude 38°35′06″ N, longitude 076°04′42″ W, a position located at Great Marsh Park, Cambridge, MD. 29 October—last Saturday or November—1st Saturday Tug of War City of Annapolis The waters of Spa Creek from shoreline to shoreline, extending 400 feet from either side of a rope spanning Spa Creek from a position at latitude 38°58′36.9″ N, longitude 076°29′03.8″ W on the Annapolis shoreline to a position at latitude 38°58′26.4″ N, longitude 076°28′53.7″ W on the Eastport shoreline. 30 December—2nd Saturday Eastport Yacht Club Boat Parade Eastport Yacht Club The approaches to Annapolis Harbor, the waters of Spa Creek, and the Severn River, shore to shore, bounded on the south by a line drawn from Carr Point, at latitude 38°58′58.0″ N, longitude 076°27′40.0″ W, thence to Horn Point Warning Light (LLNR-17935), at 38°58′24.0″ N, longitude 076°28′10.0″ W, thence to Horn Point, at 38°58′20.0″ N, longitude 076°28′27.0″ W, and bounded on the north by the State Route 450 Bridge. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—COTP Zone 31 March—4th or last Friday and Saturday Virginia state hydroplane championships Virginia Boat Racing Assn The waters of the Western Branch, Elizabeth River bounded by a line connecting the following points: latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°21′57″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°21′55.8″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to point of origin. 32 April—3rd Friday and Saturday Hydroplane races Virginia Boat Racing Assn The waters of the Western Branch, Elizabeth River bounded by a line connecting the following points: latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°21′57″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°21′55.8″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to point of origin. 33 April—4th Friday and Saturday Crawford Bay Crew Classic Port Events, Inc The waters of the Southern Branch, Elizabeth River from shoreline to shoreline bounded to the south by a line drawn from latitude 36°49′11.0″ N, longitude 076°17′33.0″ W to latitude 36°49′11.0″ N, longitude 076°17′22.0″ W and bounded to the north by a line drawn from latitude 36°50′17.5″ N, longitude 076°17′45.0″ W to latitude 36°50′17.5″ N, longitude 076°17′30.0″ W. 34 April—4th Saturday and Sunday Wet Spring Regatta Windsurfing Enthusiasts of Tidewater The waters of Willoughby Bay contained within the following coordinates: Latitude 36°58′36″ N, longitude 076°18′42″ W, to latitude 36°58′00″ N, longitude 076°18′00″ W, to latitude 36°57′49″ N, longitude 076°18′14″ W, to latitude 36°57′36″ N, longitude 076°17′55″ W, to latitude 36°57′26″ N, longitude 076°18′06″ W, to latitude 36°58′15″ N, longitude 076°19′08″ W, to latitude 36°58′36″ N, longitude 076°18′42″ W. 35 May—2nd Friday and Saturday Hydroplane races Virginia Boat Racing Assn The waters of the Western Branch, Elizabeth River bounded by a line connecting the following points: Latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°21′57″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°21′55.8″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to point of origin. 36 May—last Friday, Saturday and Sunday or June—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday Blackbeard Festival Hampton Event Makers The waters of Sunset Creek and Hampton River shore to shore bounded to the north by the C & O Railroad Bridge and to the south by a line drawn from Hampton River Channel Light 16 (LL 5715), located at latitude 37°01′03.0″ N, longitude 76°20′26.0″ W, to the finger pier across the river at Fisherman's Wharf, located at latitude 37°01′01.5″ N, longitude 76°20′32.0″ W. Spectator Vessel Anchorage Areas—Area A: Located in the upper reaches of the Hampton River, bounded to the south by a line drawn from the western shore at latitude 37°01′48.0″ N, longitude 76°20′22.0″ W, across the river to the eastern shore at latitude 37°01′44.0″ N, longitude 76°20′13.0″ W, and to the north by the C & O Railroad Bridge. The anchorage area will be marked by orange buoys. Area B: Located on the eastern side of the channel, in the Hampton River, south of the Queen Street Bridge, near the Riverside Health Center. Bounded by the shoreline and a line drawn between the following points: Latitude 37°01′26.0″ N, longitude 76°20′24.0″ W, latitude 37°01′22.0″ N, longitude 76°20′26.0″ W, and latitude 37°01′22.0″ N, longitude 76°20′23.0″ W. The anchorage area will be marked by orange buoys. 37 June—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday Norfolk Harborfest Norfolk Festevents, Ltd The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shore to shore, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51.0″ N, longitude 076°18′09.0″ W and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′00.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50.0″ N, longitude 076°18′10.0″ W, to the northern end of the eastern most pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′10.0″ N, longitude 076°17′47.0″ W, and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08.0″ N, longitude 076°17′39.0″ W; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ N, longitude 076°17′14.5″ W, and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35.0″ N, longitude 076°17′10.0″ W. 38 June—1st Friday and Saturday Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge Offshore Performance Assn. Racing, LLC The waters of the Atlantic Ocean commencing at a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°25′42″ N, longitude 075°03′06″ W; thence east southeast to latitude 38°25′30″ N, longitude 075°02′12″ W, thence south southwest parallel to the Ocean City shoreline to latitude 38°19′12″ N, longitude 075°03′48″ W; thence west northwest to the shoreline at latitude 38°19′30″ N, longitude 075°05′00″ W. The waters of the Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn from a position along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD, at latitude 38°22′25.2″ N, longitude 075°03′49.4″ W, thence easterly to latitude 38°22′00.4″ N, longitude 075°02′34.8″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 38°19′35.9″ N, longitude 075°03′35.4″ W, thence westerly to a position near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′05″ N, longitude 075°04′48.4″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin. 39 June—3rd Saturday Cock Island Race Ports Events, Inc The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shore to shore, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51.0″ N, longitude 076°18′09.0″ W and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′00.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50.0″ N, longitude 076°18′10.0″ W, to the northern end of the eastern most pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′10.0″ N, longitude 076°17′47.0″ W, and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08.0″ N, longitude 076°17′39.0″ W; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ N, longitude 076°17′14.5″ W, and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35.0″ N, longitude 076°17′10.0″ W. 40 June—last Saturday RRBA Spring Radar Shootout Rappahannock River Boaters Association
(RRBA)The waters of the Rappahannock River, adjacent to Layton, VA, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the west by a line running along longitude 076°58′30″ W, and bounded on the east by a line running along longitude 076°56′00″ W. 41 July—3rd Sunday Watermen's Heritage Festival Workboat Races Watermen's Museum of Yorktown, VA The waters of the York River, Yorktown, Virginia, bounded on the west by a line drawn along longitude 076°31′25″ W, bounded on the east by a line drawn along longitude 076°30′55″ W, bounded on the south by the shoreline and bounded on the north by a line drawn parallel and 400 yards north of the southern shoreline. 42 July—last Wednesday and following Friday Pony Penning Swim Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department The waters of Assateague Channel from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the east by a line drawn from latitude 37°55′01″ N, longitude 075°22′40″ W, to latitude 37°54′50″ N, longitude 075°22′46″ W, and to the west by a line drawn from latitude 37°54′54.0″ N, longitude 075°23′00″ W, to latitude 37°54′49″ N, longitude 075°22′49″ W. 43 August—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday Power boat race East Coast Boat Racing Club of New Jersey The waters of the Chesapeake Bay, along the shoreline adjacent to Cape Charles, Virginia, to and including waters up to 300 yards offshore, parallel with the Cape Charles Beach shoreline in this area. The area is bounded on the south by a line running northwesterly from the Cape Charles shoreline at latitude 37°16′.2″ N, longitude 076°01′28.5″ W, to a point offshore approximately 300 yards at latitude 37°16′3.4″ N, longitude 076°01′36.6″ W, and bounded on the north by a line running northwesterly from the Cape Charles shoreline at latitude 37°16′26.2″ N, longitude 076°01′14″ W, to a point offshore approximately 300 yards at latitude 37°16′28.9″ N, longitude 076°01′24.1″ W. 44 August—2nd Friday, Saturday and Sunday Hampton Cup Regatta Virginia Boat Racing Association The waters of Mill Creek, adjacent to Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia, enclosed by the following boundaries: to the north, a line drawn along latitude 37°01′00″ N, to the east a line drawn along longitude 076°18′30″ W, to the south a line parallel with the shoreline adjacent to Fort Monroe, and the west boundary is parallel with the Route 258—Mercury Boulevard Bridge. 45 September—2nd Friday and Saturday Ocean City power boat race Offshore Performance Assn. Racing, LLC The waters of the Atlantic Ocean commencing at a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°25′42″ N, longitude 075°03′06″ W; thence east southeast to latitude 38°25′30″ N, longitude 075°02′12″ W, thence south southwest parallel to the Ocean City shoreline to latitude 38°19′12″ N, longitude 075°03′48″ W; thence west northwest to the shoreline at latitude 38°19′30″ N, longitude 075°05′00″ W. The waters of the Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn from a position along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD, at latitude 38°22′25.2″ N, longitude 075°03′49.4″ W, thence easterly to latitude 38°22′00.4″ N, longitude 075°02′34.8″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 38°19′35.9″ N, longitude 075°03′35.4″ W, thence westerly to a position near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′05″ N, longitude 075°04′48.4″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin. 46 September—2nd Friday, Saturday and Sunday Hampton Bay Days Festival Hampton Bay Days, Inc The waters of Sunset Creek and Hampton River shore to shore bounded to the north by the C & O Railroad Bridge and to the south by a line drawn from Hampton River Channel Light 16 (LL 5715), located at latitude 37°01′03.0″ N, longitude 076°20′26.0″ W, to the finger pier across the river at Fisherman's Wharf, located at latitude 37°01′01.5″ N, longitude 076°20′32.0″ W. 47 October—1st Saturday and Sunday Virginia Boat Racing Association Clarksville Hydroplane Challenge The waters of the John H. Kerr Reservoir, adjacent to the State Route 15 Highway Bridge and Occoneechee State Park, Clarksville, Virginia, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running northeasterly from a point along the shoreline at latitude 36°37′14″ N, longitude 078°32′46.5″ W, thence to latitude 36°37′39.2″ N, longitude 078°32′08.8″ W, and bounded on the north by the State Route 15 Highway Bridge. 48 October—2nd Friday U.S. Navy Fleet Week Celebration U.S. Navy The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shore to shore, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51.0″ N, longitude 076°18′09.0″ W and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′00.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50.0″ N, longitude 076°18′10.0″ W, to the northern end of the eastern most pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′10.0″ N, longitude 076°17′47.0″ W, and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08.0″ N, longitude 076°17′39.0″ W; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge, which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ N, longitude 076°17′14.5″ W, and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35.0″ N, longitude 076°17′10.0″ W. 49 October—2nd Saturday and Sunday Hydroplane races Virginia Boat Racing Assn The waters of the Western Branch, Elizabeth River bounded by a line connecting the following points: latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′06″ N, longitude 076°21′57″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°21′55.8″ W, thence to latitude 36°50′15″ N, longitude 076°22′27″ W, thence to point of origin. 50 October—2nd Sunday Poquoson Seafood Festival Workboat Races City of Poquoson The waters of the Back River, Poquoson, Virginia, bounded on the north by a line drawn along latitude 37°06′30″ N, bounded on the south by a line drawn along latitude 37°06′15″ N, bounded on the east by a line drawn along longitude 076°18′52″ W and bounded on the west by a line drawn along longitude 076°19′30″ W. 51 October—last Saturday and Sunday Hampton Roads Sailboard Classic Windsurfing Enthusiasts of Tidewater The waters of Willoughby Bay contained within the following coordinates: latitude 36°58′36″ N, longitude 076°18′42″ W, to latitude 36°58′00″ N, longitude 076°18′00″ W, to latitude 36°57′49″ N, longitude 076°18′14″ W, to latitude 36°57′36″ N, longitude 076°17′55″ W, to latitude 36°57′26″ N, longitude 076°18′06″ W, to latitude 36°58′15″ N, longitude 076°19′08″ W, to latitude 36°58′36″ N, longitude 076°18′42″ W. 52 November—1st Friday and Saturday International Search and Rescue Competition U.S. Coast Guard and Canadian Auxiliaries The waters of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River including the North Ferry Landing, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn along latitude 36°50′23″ N and bounded to the south by a line drawn along latitude 36°50′12″ N. 53 November—4th or last Saturday Holidays in the City Norfolk Festevents, Ltd The waters of the Elizabeth River and its branches from shore to shore, bounded to the northwest by a line drawn across the Port Norfolk Reach section of the Elizabeth River between the northern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, latitude 36°50′51.0″ N, longitude 076°18′09.0″ W and the north corner of the City of Norfolk Mooring Pier at the foot of Brooks Avenue located at latitude 36°51′00.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded on the southwest by a line drawn from the southern corner of the landing at Hospital Point, Portsmouth, Virginia, at latitude 36°50′50.0″ N, longitude 076°18′10.0″ W, to the northern end of the easternmost pier at the Tidewater Yacht Agency Marina, located at latitude 36°50′29.0″ N, longitude 076°17′52.0″ W; bounded to the south by a line drawn across the Lower Reach of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, between the Portsmouth Lightship Museum located at the foot of London Boulevard, in Portsmouth, Virginia at latitude 36°50′10.0″ N, longitude 076°17′47.0″ W, and the northwest corner of the Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock, Berkley Plant, Pier No. 1, located at latitude 36°50′08.0″ N, longitude 076°17′39.0″ W; and to the southeast by the Berkley Bridge which crosses the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River between Berkley at latitude 36°50′21.5″ N, longitude 076°17′14.5″ W, and Norfolk at latitude 36°50′35.0″ N, longitude 076°17′10.0″ W. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—COTP Zone 54 June—2nd Saturday and Sunday Carolina Cup Regatta Virginia Boat Racing Assn The waters of the Pasquotank River, adjacent to Elizabeth City, NC, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the west by the Elizabeth City Draw Bridge and bounded on the east by a line originating at a point along the shoreline at latitude 36°17′54″ N, longitude 076°12′00″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 36°17′35″ N, longitude 076°12′18″ W at Cottage Point. 55 August—1st Friday, Saturday and Sunday SBIP—Fountain Powerboats Kilo Run and Super Boat Grand Prix Super Boat International Productions (SBIP), Inc The waters of the Pamlico River including Chocowinity Bay, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running northeasterly from Camp Hardee at latitude 35°28′23″ N, longitude 076°59′23″ W, to Broad Creek Point at latitude 35°29′04″ N, longitude 076°58′44″ W, and bounded on the north by the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge. 56 September—4th or last Sunday Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix Super Boat International Productions, Inc The waters of Bogue Sound, adjacent to Morehead City, NC, from the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N, longitude 076°42′48″ W, thence westerly to Morehead City Channel Day beacon 7 (LLNR 38620), thence southwest along the channel line to Bogue Sound Light 4 (LLRN 38770), thence southerly to Causeway Channel Day beacon 2 (LLNR 38720), thence southeasterly to Money Island Day beacon 1 (LLNR 38645), thence easterly to Eight and One Half Marina Day beacon 2 (LLNR 38685), thence easterly to the westernmost shoreline of Brant Island approximate position latitude 34°42′36″ N, longitude 076°42′11″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to Tombstone Point approximate position latitude 34°42′14″ N, longitude 076°41′20″ W, thence southeasterly to the east end of the pier at Coast Guard Sector North Carolina approximate position latitude 34°42′00″ N, longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence easterly to Morehead City Channel Buoy 20 (LLNR 29427), thence northerly to Beaufort Harbor Channel LT 1BH (LLNR 34810), thence northwesterly to the southern tip of Radio Island approximate position latitude 34°42′22″ N, longitude 076°40′52″ W, thence northerly along the shoreline to approximate position latitude 34°43′00″ N, longitude 076°41′25″ W, thence westerly to the North Carolina State Port Facility, thence westerly along the State Port to the southwest corner approximate position latitude 34°42′55″ N, longitude 076°42′12″ W, thence westerly to the southern tip of Sugar Loaf Island the point of origin. 57 September—last Saturday Wilmington YMCA Triathlon Wilmington, NC, YMCA The waters of, and adjacent to, Wrightsville Channel, from Wrightsville Channel Day beacon 14 (LLNR 28040), located at 34°12′18″ N, longitude 077°48′10″ W, to Wrightsville Channel Day beacon 25 (LLNR 28080), located at 34°12′51″ N, longitude 77°48′53″ W. § 100.502 [Removed] 3. Remove section 100.502. § 100.504 [Removed] 4. Remove section 100.504. § 100.505 [Removed] 5. Remove section 100.505. § 100.506 [Removed] 6. Remove section 100.506. § 100.507 [Removed] 7. Remove section 100.507. § 100.508 [Removed] 8. Remove section 100.508. § 100.509 [Removed] 9. Remove section 100.509. § 100.510 [Removed] 10. Remove section 100.510. § 100.511 [Removed] 11. Remove section 100.511. § 100.512 [Removed] 12. Remove section 100.512. § 100.513 [Removed] 13. Remove section 100.513. § 100.514 [Removed] 14. Remove section 100.514. § 100.515 [Removed] 15. Remove section 100.515. § 100.517 [Removed] 16. Remove section 100.517. § 100.518 [Removed] 17. Remove section 100.518. § 100.519 [Removed] 18. Remove section 100.519. § 100.520 [Removed] 19. Remove section 100.520. § 100.522 [Removed] 20. Remove section 100.522. § 100.523 [Removed] 21. Remove section 100.523. § 100.525 [Removed] 22. Remove section 100.525. § 100.526 [Removed] 23. Remove section 100.526. § 100.527 [Removed] 24. Remove section 100.527. § 100.529 [Removed] 25. Remove section 100.529. § 100.530 [Removed] 26. Remove section 100.530. § 100.531 [Removed] 27. Remove section 100.531. § 100.532 [Removed] 28. Remove section 100.532. § 100.533 [Removed] 29. Remove section 100.533. § 100.534 [Removed] 30. Remove section 100.534. § 100.535 [Removed] 31. Remove section 100.535. § 100.536 [Removed] 32. Remove section 100.536. Dated: April 21, 2008. Fred M. Rosa, Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-10229 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 RIN 1625-AA00 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0309] Safety Zone: Hatteras Boat Parade and Firework Display, Trent River, New Bern, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will implement a safety zone during the Hatteras Boat Parade and Firework Display, a motor yacht parade to be held on the waters of the Trent River, New Bern, North Carolina. Vessel traffic in portions on the Trent River adjacent to New Bern, North Carolina, will be restricted during the fireworks display. DATES: This rule is effective May 30, 2008 from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0309 and are available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . They are also available for inspection or copying two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and at Commander Sector North Carolina, 2301 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina 28512, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call C. D. Humphrey, Marine Event Coordinator,
(252)247-4569. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the event. The necessary information to determine whether the marine event poses a threat to persons and vessels was not provided to the Coast Guard in sufficient time to publish an NPRM. The potential dangers posed by the pyrotechnic fireworks display, make a safety zone necessary to provide for the safety of spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the restriction and on have on-scene Coast Guard and local law enforcement vessels. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest, because immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. Advance notifications will be made to users of the Trent River, via marine information broadcasts, local notice to mariners, commercial radio stations and area newspapers. Background and Purpose On May 30, 2008, Hatteras Yacht's will sponsor the “Hatteras Boat Parade and Firework Display”, on the waters of the Trent River. The event will consist of approximately nine motor Yachts ranging from 41 to 80 feet in length parading single file pass the Sheraton Hotel and Marina. A small barge with close proximity pyrotechnics will be anchored near the Trent River Railroad Bridge. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the Trent River, New Bern, North Carolina. The safety zone includes all waters within a 150 foot radius of position 35° 06′ 03″ N 077° 02′ 24″ W or approximately one 100 yards east of the center span of Trent River Railroad Bridge, New Bern, North Carolina. The safety zone will be in effect from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 30, 2008. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the safety zone during the fireworks display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone during the enforcement period. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of specific enforcement times by Marine Radio Safety Broadcast. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this proposed regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Trent River adjacent to New Bern, North Carolina, during the event, the effects of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the safety zone would be in effect. Extensive advance notifications would be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcast, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic would be able to transit the safety zone when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Trent River will be impacted during the event. This purposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 30, 2008. The safety zone will apply to a segment of the Trent River adjacent to the New Bern waterfront. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the safety zone with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the safety zone during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the parade route. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary 165.T-0309 to read as follows: § 165.T-0309 Trent River, New Bern, North Carolina.
(a)*Safety Zone* . The safety zone includes all waters within a 150 feet radius of position 35° 06′ 03″ North 077° 03′ 24″ West, approximately one hundred yards east of the Trent River Railroad Bridge, New Bern, North Carolina. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions* .
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the “Hatteras Boat Parade” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(c)*Safety Zone* .
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone.
(2)The Operator of any vessel in the safety zone must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii)Comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii)If authorized to proceed, proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event site.
(d)*Enforcement period* . This section will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 30, 2008. Dated: April 21, 2008. June E. Ryan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Sector North Carolina. [FR Doc. E8-10272 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG 2008-0275] Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, City of Monterey, Monterey, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Fourth of July Fireworks Display safety zone for the city of Monterey from 8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2008. This action is necessary to control vessel traffic and to ensure the safety of event participants and spectators. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM). DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Sheral Richardson, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at
(415)399-7436. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Fourth of July Fireworks Display for the city of Monterey in 33 CFR 165.1191 on July 4, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order of direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the **Federal Register** , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area. Dated: April 15, 2008. D.J. Swatland, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Sector San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8-10276 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0648; FRL-8563-6] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; States of South Dakota and Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct Final Rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve State Implementation Plans
(SIPs)submitted by the States of South Dakota and Wyoming that address interstate transport with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM <sup>2.5</sup> ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA has determined that the Interstate Transport declarations submitted by South Dakota on May 15, 2007, and by Wyoming on May 3, 2007, satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions, also known as the “good neighbor” provisions, that a state SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air pollutant emissions from sources or activities in the state from adversely affecting another state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This rule is effective on July 7, 2008 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 9, 2008. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0648, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov* and *mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov* • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery:* Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0648. 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. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-6436, *mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i)The words or initials *Act* or *CAA* mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii)The words *EPA, we, us* or *our* mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii)The initials *SIP* mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv)The words *South Dakota* and *Wyoming* mean respectively the State of South Dakota and the State of Wyoming. Table of Contents I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? II. What is the purpose of this action? III. What is the State process to submit these materials to EPA? IV. EPA's evaluation of the State of South Dakota May 15, 2007 submittal V. EPA's evaluation of the State of Wyoming May 3, 2007 submittal VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI.* Do not submit CBI to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Is the Purpose of this Action? EPA is approving the “Interstate Transport Report” adopted into the State of South Dakota SIP on April 19, 2007 and submitted to EPA on May 15, 2007. EPA is also approving the “Interstate Transport” declaration adopted into the State of Wyoming SIP on April 19, 2007 and submitted to EPA on May 3, 2007. The South Dakota “Interstate Transport Report” and the Wyoming “Interstate Transport” declaration address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The provisions in this section of the CAA, also referred to as the “good neighbor” provisions, require that each state's SIP include adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport of air pollutants. III. What Is the State Process To Submit These Materials to EPA? Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses EPA's actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires states to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a state to EPA. The South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
(DENR)held a public hearing for the addition of the Interstate Transport Report to the South Dakota SIP on April 19, 2007, adopted the Report on this same date, and submitted it to EPA on May 15, 2007. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ)held a public hearing for the addition of the Interstate Transport declaration on December 11, 2006, adopted the declaration into the State SIP on April 15, 2007, and submitted it to EPA on May 3, 2007. We have evaluated the submittals of these SIP revisions by the South Dakota DENR and the Wyoming DEQ and have determined that the States met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. IV. EPA's Evaluation of the State of South Dakota May 15, 2007 Submittal EPA has reviewed the South Dakota Interstate Transport Report submitted on May 15, 2007 and believes that approval is warranted. The provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that the South Dakota SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air pollutant emissions from sources or activities in the state from adversely affecting another state. A state SIP must include provisions that prohibit sources from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:
(1)Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state;
(2)interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by another state;
(3)interfere with another state's measures to prevent significant deterioration of its air quality; and
(4)interfere with the efforts of another state to protect visibility. EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006 relating to SIP submissions that meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the PM 2.5 and the 8-hour ozone standards. The Interstate Transport Report submitted by the State of South Dakota is consistent with the guidance. To support the first two of the four elements noted above, the State of South Dakota relies on a combination of:
(a)EPA positions and modeling analysis results published in **Federal Register** notices as part of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)rulemaking process; 1 and,
(b)considerations of geographical and meteorological factors affecting the likelihood of pollution transport from the State to the closest 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment areas in other states. 1 Unless otherwise noted, in this action the expression CAIR rulemaking process or CAIR rule refers to materials (data, analyses, assessments) developed during the rulemaking process that resulted in the May 12, 2005 **Federal Register** notice “Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to NO <sup>X</sup> SIP Call; Final Rule,” (70 FR 25162). In addition, EPA includes data and analysis based on materials published in EPA's CAIR rulemaking notices and on monitoring data gathered by the states and reported to EPA in the Air Quality System
(AQS)database. For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the South Dakota Interstate Transport Report identifies the Denver Metropolitan Area in Colorado, and the Illinois and Wisconsin counties along the western shore of Lake Michigan as the closest nonattainment areas. The northernmost edge of the Denver Metropolitan Area is about 170 miles from the southwest corner of South Dakota, and nearly in opposite direction to the prevailing winds. These considerations, in combination with other factors such as the absence of nonattainment areas in South Dakota, and along the 170 miles between South Dakota's southwestern corner and the Denver Metropolitan Area, lead to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely that South Dakota makes a significant contribution to the 8-hour ozone nonattainment in this Colorado area. The rim of Illinois/Wisconsin counties along the western shore of Lake Michigan is more than 400 miles from the South Dakota eastern border. Again, distance, in combination with factors such as the absence of nonattainment areas in the intervening downwind states of Minnesota and Iowa make it highly unlikely that South Dakota contributes significantly to ozone nonattainment in the Illinois and Wisconsin counties along the western shore of Lake Michigan. A similar conclusion is suggested by our examination of AQS monitoring data on 8-hour ozone exceedance days registered during the 2004-2006 years at monitoring stations in South Dakota and in neighboring downwind or potentially downwind states. During these years the ozone monitors did not register any exceedance days in South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa. In the same time span the monitors in Minnesota, another of the closest downwind states, measured 8-hours ozone exceedances on less than 0.5 percent of the days. Minnesota monitors registered three exceedance days on June 2, July 12 and 22, 2005. The absence of 8-hour ozone exceedance days in South Dakota and most of its adjacent states, combined with the rare occurrence of exceedance days in Minnesota is consistent with conclusions drawn from other data and analysis, presented in the preceding paragraphs: any ozone or ozone precursor transport from South Dakota to downwind states is not high enough to significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, in neighboring downwind states. The section of the South Dakota Interstate Transport Report addressing the absence of significant ozone transport from South Dakota to downwind states includes a paragraph quoted from the EPA web page “States Not Covered by CAIR” 2 that has since been replaced. While the text quoted in the South Dakota Interstate Transport SIP reflects accurately the EPA web page text at the time South Dakota adopted the Report into the State SIP and submitted it to EPA, EPA subsequently revised its website. Specifically, in September 2007, EPA removed the sentence “Several states are not included in the CAIR region because they do not contribute to down wind nonattainment.” EPA's revised website prefaces the same list of 22 non-CAIR States (which includes South Dakota) with the statement that these states are not covered by CAIR, without discussing the basis for this conclusion. 3 2 See “South Dakota Implementation Plan, Interstate Transport Report,” January 5, 2007, page 2. 3 Reproductions of the two web pages discussed in this paragraph may be found in EPA's April 8, 2008, “Guidance and Supporting Documentation” memo included in the docket for this action. As of 1/24/08 the EPA Web page for Non-CAIR States, updated in September 2007, may be found at *http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/not-covered.html.* EPA's replacement of the text originally published on its “Non-CAIR States” web page does not affect our evaluation of the State of South Dakota's position that the State is unlikely to contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment in down wind states, as demonstrated by the data and analysis examined in the preceding paragraphs. In light of EPA's website revisions, EPA recommends that in a future rulemaking the State of South Dakota remove from its Interstate Transport Report the EPA paragraph incorrectly reflecting the Agency's position on the Non-CAIR states' contribution to down wind nonattainment. For the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, South Dakota identifies Libby, in Lincoln County, Montana, and Chicago, Illinois, as the nonattainment areas closest to the State. Libby is about 570 miles northwest from South Dakota, in a direction opposite to that of the prevailing winds. In addition, EPA's findings based on a nine-factor analysis of Lincoln County, and reported in the Agency's technical support document for the December 17, 2004 designations, stressed the local origins of PM 2.5 nonattainment in Libby. 4 These considerations in combination with other factors such as the absence of PM 2.5 nonattainment areas in South Dakota, and the absence of PM 2.5 nonattainment areas along the 570 miles between the State's northwest corner and Libby lead to the conclusion that it is unlikely that South Dakota is making a significant contribution to the PM 2.5 nonattainment status of Lincoln County or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in Montana. 4 “Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) Designations,” December 2004; Chapter 6, pages 347-352. The Cook County nonattainment area, in which Chicago is located, is about 450 miles from the southeastern corner of South Dakota. Given the distance, the absence of PM 2.5 nonattainment areas in South Dakota, and between South Dakota and Cook County, it is unlikely that the State of South Dakota is making a significant contribution to the nonattainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standard in Cook County. This assessment is consistent with results of the modeling analysis EPA conducted and reported in the rulemaking **Federal Register** notices for the determination of the CAIR states (69 FR 4566 and 70 FR 25162). According to the CAIR Proposed Rule of January 30, 2004, the maximum PM 2.5 contribution by South Dakota to downwind counties identified as being in nonattainment for the base years 2010 and 2015 is to Cook County, and is estimated to be 0.04 μg/m 3 (Table V-5, 69 FR 4608). This amount is well below the “significant contribution” threshold of 0.20μg/m 3 set by EPA. AQS monitoring data we reviewed are consistent with these results. During the years 2004-2006, monitors in the State of South Dakota and its adjacent downwind or potentially downwind states, except for Minnesota, showed no PM 2.5 exceedance days. During these years the Minnesota monitors registered exceedances only on one out of 1,096 days. 5 5 Adjacent downwind/potentially downwind states showing no PM 2.5 exceedance days include Nebraska, North Dakota and Iowa. Minnesota monitors showed one exceedance day in three years, on January 31, 2005. In conclusion, the data and analysis reviewed above indicate that the Interstate Transport Report adopted by South Dakota into the State SIP satisfactorily addresses the first two elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards. The third element of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions requires states to prohibit emissions that interfere with any other state's measures to prevent significant deterioration
(PSD)of air quality. Consistently with EPA guidance issued August 11, 2006, the State of South Dakota explains that the State's SIP provisions include EPA-approved PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR)programs that satisfy the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements. The State PSD program has been implemented for many years and NNSR implementation has not been needed since there are no PM 2.5 or 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in South Dakota. The fourth element of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions concerns the requirement that a state SIP prohibit sources from emitting pollutants that interfere with the efforts of another state to protect visibility. Consistent with the August 15, 2006 EPA guidance, the South Dakota Interstate Transport Report declares that there are no State sources of emissions interfering with the implementation of the 1980 regulations that required the states to address Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment
(RAVI)SIPs in other states. Regarding visibility impairment caused by regional haze, the South Dakota Interstate Transport Report concurs with EPA that it is currently premature to determine whether or not SIPs for 8-hour ozone or PM 2.5 contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that interfere with measures in other states' SIPs designed to address regional haze. This requirement will be addressed in the South Dakota regional haze SIP. Therefore, South Dakota addresses the third and fourth elements of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions in a way that is consistent with the EPA guidance noted above. V. EPA's Evaluation of the State of Wyoming May 3, 2007 Submittal EPA has reviewed the Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP submitted on May 3, 2007 and believes that approval is warranted. The provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that the Wyoming SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air pollutant emissions from sources or activities in the state from adversely affecting another state. A state SIP must include provisions that prohibit sources from emitting pollutants in amounts which will:
(1)Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state;
(2)interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by another state;
(3)interfere with another state's measures to prevent significant deterioration of its air quality; and
(4)interfere with the efforts of another state to protect visibility. EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006 relating to SIP submissions that meet the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM 2.5 and the 8-hour ozone standards. The Interstate Transport SIP submitted by the State of Wyoming is consistent with the guidance. To support the first two of the four elements noted above, the State of Wyoming relies on a combination of:
(a)EPA positions and modeling analysis results published in **Federal Register** notices as part of the CAIR rulemaking process; and
(b)considerations of geographical, meteorological and topographical factors affecting the likelihood of significant pollution transport from the State to the closest PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in other states. In addition, we examine factors specific to Wyoming, and to a number of downwind or potentially downwind states that might be significantly affected by any transport of PM 2.5 , and of ozone and/or ozone precursors from Wyoming. For the 8-hour ozone standard, the Denver metropolitan area in Colorado, and the Las Vegas-Clark County area in Nevada are the closest nonattainment areas. The Las Vegas-Clark County area is more than 400 miles from the southwest corner of Wyoming and in a direction opposite to that of the prevailing winds. Given this distance and the absence of 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas between Wyoming and Clark County, it is unlikely that Wyoming is making a significant contribution to the ozone nonattainment in Clark County. Even though the northernmost edge of the Denver metropolitan area is only 30 miles south of the Wyoming border, it is highly unlikely that Wyoming contributes significantly to this area's non-attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The State of Wyoming does not have any ozone nonattainment areas, and the AQS database indicates that during the 2004-2006 years Wyoming monitors registered four exceedance days for the 8-hour ozone standard, all occurring in the wintertime. 6 Given that ozone levels generally reach peak values during the warm months of the year, which is also the case of the Denver metropolitan area, one may readily conclude that the monitoring data noted above excludes the likelihood of a significant contribution from the State of Wyoming to the 8-hour ozone nonattainment of the Denver metropolitan area. 6 The exceedance days were registered at two monitors within Sublette County—the site of the Jonah gas field development. The exceedance values were measured on February 3, 20, and 26, 2005, and February 27, 2006. A significant transport of ozone and/or its precursors from Wyoming to other close downwind or potentially downwind states such as Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota is also unlikely. As is the case with Wyoming, none of these states have any ozone nonattainment areas, and the four ozone exceedance days registered in Wyoming during the winter of 2005 and 2006 had no significant impact on these states. During the 2004-2006 years considered here, the monitoring stations in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota showed no exceedance days for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The section of the Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP addressing the absence of significant ozone transport from Wyoming to downwind states includes a paragraph quoted from the EPA Web page “States Not Covered by CAIR” 7 that has since been replaced. While the text quoted in the Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP reflects accurately the EPA Web page text at the time Wyoming adopted the Interstate Transport declaration into the State SIP and submitted it to EPA, EPA subsequently revised its Web site. Specifically, in September 2007, EPA removed the sentence “Several states are not included in the CAIR region because they do not contribute to downwind nonattainment.” EPA's revised Web site prefaces the same list of 22 non-CAIR States (which includes Wyoming) with the statement that these states are not covered by CAIR, without discussing the basis for this conclusion. 8 7 See “Wyoming State Implementation Plan, Interstate Transport,” December 11, 2006, page 2. 8 Reproductions of the two Web pages discussed in this paragraph may be found in EPA's “Guidance, Supporting Materials, and Additional Materials” in this docket. As of 1/24/08 the EPA Web page for Non-CAIR States, updated on September 20, 2007, may be found at *http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/not-covered.html.* EPA's replacement of the text originally published on its “Non-CAIR States” Web page does not affect our evaluation of the State of Wyoming's position that the State is unlikely to contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment in downwind states, as demonstrated by the data and analysis examined in the preceding paragraphs. In light of EPA's Web site revisions, EPA recommends that in a future rulemaking the State of Wyoming remove from its Interstate Transport SIP the EPA paragraph incorrectly reflecting the Agency's position on the Non-CAIR states' contribution to downwind nonattainment. The Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP addresses the question of potential PM 2.5 transport to other states by quoting from the explanation given by EPA in support of the exclusion of four western states (including Wyoming) from the analysis that underlies the CAIR final rule notice: Regarding modeling of all states, in the PM 2.5 modeling for the NPRM, we modeled 41 states, and found that the westernmost of these states made very small contributions to nonattainment in any other state. For the revised modeling for the final rule, we reduced the set of states modeled for reasons of efficiency. The results again showed that the westernmost states modeled did not make contributions above the significance threshold, indicating that had other even more western States been modeled they also would not have done so. 9 9 “Corrected Response to Significant Public Comments on the Proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule Received in response to: Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality Rule); Proposed Rule (69 FR 4566; January 30, 2004) Supplemental Proposal for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Proposal Rule (69 FR 32684; June 10, 2004) Docket Number OAR-2003-0053,” April 2005. These assessments are substantiated by data and consideration of additional factors we examine next. Findings from the modeling analysis conducted by EPA for the CAIR proposed rule include the maximum annual average PM 2.5 contribution by 41 states to the downwind counties identified in nonattainment for the base years 2010 and 2015. Among the states included in the study, the maximum PM 2.5 annual average contribution to nonattainment by the westernmost states amounted to: 0.04 μg/m 3 for Colorado, 0.03 μg/m 3 for Montana, 0.08 μg/m 3 for Nebraska, 0.12 μg/m 3 for North Dakota, 0.04 μg/m 3 for South Dakota, and 0.05 μg/m 3 for Wyoming (69 FR 4608). These amounts are well below the “significant contribution” threshold of 0.20 μg/m 3 set by EPA. A review of PM 2.5 attainment/nonattainment areas and AQS monitoring data in Wyoming and its downwind, or potentially downwind, states yields similar conclusions. Wyoming's closest PM 2.5 nonattainment area is centered in Libby, Lincoln County, Montana, which is about 330 miles north of the Wyoming northwest corner. EPA's findings based on a nine-factor analysis of Lincoln County (reported in the Agency's technical support document for the December 17, 2004 nonattainment designations) stress the local origins of PM 2.5 nonattainment in Libby. 10 These findings, in combination with other factors such as distance, the absence of PM 2.5 nonattainment areas in Wyoming, and the absence of PM 2.5 nonattainment areas along the 330 miles between the Wyoming northwest corner area and Libby, are strong indications that it is unlikely that Wyoming is making a significant contribution to the PM 2.5 nonattainment status of Lincoln County. AQS monitoring data for the period 2004-2006 shows that there were no PM 2.5 exceedance days in Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. Montana monitors registered five exceedance days, equivalent to less than 0.5 percent, distributed among four different counties. 10 “Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) Designations,” December 2004; Chapter 6, pages 347-352. The data and analyses considered in the preceding paragraphs indicate that the Interstate Transport declaration adopted by Wyoming into the State SIP satisfactorily addresses the first two elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 PM <sup>2.5</sup> and 8-hour ozone standards. The third element of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions requires states to prohibit emissions that interfere with any other state's measures to prevent significant deterioration
(PSD)of air quality. Consistent with EPA guidance issued August 11, 2006, the State of Wyoming explains that the State's SIP provisions include an EPA-approved PSD program, implemented for many years, that satisfies the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements. In the absence of any PM <sup>2.5</sup> or 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas, Wyoming does not have an NNSR program but indicates that the State will update its NSR program to include one if the need should arise. The fourth element of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions concerns the requirement that a state SIP prohibit sources from emitting pollutants that interfere with the efforts of another state to protect visibility. Consistent with the August 15, 2006 EPA guidance, the Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP declares that there are no State sources of emissions interfering with the implementation of the 1980 regulations that required the states to address Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment
(RAVI)SIPs in other states. Regarding visibility impairment caused by regional haze, the Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP concurs with EPA that it is currently premature to determine whether or not SIPs for 8-hour ozone or PM <sup>2.5</sup> contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that interfere with measures in other states' SIPs designed to address regional haze. This requirement will be addressed in the Wyoming regional haze SIP. Thus, Wyoming addresses the third and fourth elements of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions in a way that is consistent with the EPA guidance noted above. VI. Final Action EPA is approving the Interstate Transport Report submitted by the State of South Dakota on May 15, 2007, and is adding section X to 40 CFR 52.1270(e) to reflect that the State has adequately addressed the required elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act. EPA is approving the Interstate Transport SIP submitted by the State of Wyoming on May 3, 2007 and is adding section XVIII to 40 CFR 52.2620(e) to reflect that the State has adequately addressed the required elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This rule will be effective July 7, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 9, 2008. If the EPA receives adverse comments, 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. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review 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 law 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. 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). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile Organic Compounds. Dated: April 23, 2008. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region 8. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart QQ—South Dakota 2. In § 52.2170, the table in paragraph
(e)is amended by adding entry “X” in numerical order to read as follows: § 52.2170 Identification of plan.
(e)*EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions.* Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or non-attainment area State submittal date/Adopted date EPA approval date and citation Explanations * * * * * * * X. Interstate Transport. South Dakota Interstate Transport Report satisfying the requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> standards Statewide Submitted: 5/15/07 Adopted: 4/19/07 5/08/08 [insert FR page number where document begins] Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 3. In § 52.2620, the table in paragraph
(e)is amended by adding entry “XVIII” in numerical order to read as follows: § 52.2620 Identification of plan. *(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions.* Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or non-attainment area State submittal date/Adopted date EPA approval date and citation Explanations * * * * * * * XVIII. Interstate Transport. Wyoming Interstate Transport SIP satisfying the requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM <sup>2.5</sup> standards Statewide Submitted: 5/3/07 Adopted: 4/15/07 5/08/08 [insert FR page number where document begins] [FR Doc. E8-10103 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-8564-1] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of Deletion for the Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 2 Office announces the deletion of the Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL). The Tabernacle Drum Dump Site is located in Tabernacle Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. The NPL constitutes Appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) have determined that all appropriate response actions have been implemented and no further response actions are required. In addition, EPA and the NJDEP have determined that the remedial action taken at the Tabernacle Drum Dump Site is protective of public health, welfare, and the environment. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011. All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not 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 site information repositories. Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are: EPA's Region 2 Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866,
(212)637-4308. Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, by appointment only. Information on the Site is also available for viewing at the Site's information repository located at: Tabernacle Municipal Building, 163 Carranza Road, Tabernacle, New Jersey 08088. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Tomchuk, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,
(212)637-3956. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is the Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site, located in Tabernacle Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. A Notice of Intent to Delete for the Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site was published in the **Federal Register** on September 24, 2007. The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was October 24, 2007. Two letters were received by EPA on the proposed deletion during the public comment period. One of the letters simply asked for clarification of the ability to continue site restoration after the deletion. The second letter provided support for the deletion of the Tabernacle Drum Dump Site. EPA responded to the letters in January 2008. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011, on *http://www.regulations.gov* , and in the local repositories listed above. EPA's decision to propose the site for deletion was based on the successful implementation of the remedy, which included removal and off-site disposal of contaminated drums, containers and soil from the disposal site, and ground water extraction, treatment and re-injection into the ground, thereby mitigating risks to human health and the environment. Post-remediation ground water monitoring for five years confirmed that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site or portion thereof deleted from the NPL remains eligible for remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action in the future. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution controls, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: April 11, 2008. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. For the reasons set out in the preamble, Part 300, Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by removing “Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site, Tabernacle Township, New Jersey.” [FR Doc. E8-10316 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 65 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7776] Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule. SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents. DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities. From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety
(90)days in which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided. Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data. The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and with 44 CFR part 65. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals. The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by the other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This interim rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Regulatory Classification.* This interim 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 interim rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This interim rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows: PART 65—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 65 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. § 65.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 65.4 are amended as follows: State and county Location and case No. Date and name of newspaper where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification Community No. Alabama: Lee City of Opelika (07-04-4788P) February 14, 2008; February 21, 2008; *Opelika-Auburn News* The Honorable Gary Fuller, Mayor, City of Opelika, P.O. Box 390, Opelika, AL 36803-0390 January 31, 2008 010145 Arizona: Yavapai Town of Prescott Valley (07-09-1708P) February 21, 2008; February 28, 2008; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Harvey Skoog, Mayor, Town of Prescott Valley, 7501 East Civic Circle, Prescott Valley, AZ 86314 June 27, 2008 040121 Yavapai Yavapai County (07-09-1708P) February 21, 2008; February 28, 2008; *Prescott Daily Courier* The Honorable Chip Davis, Chairman, Yavapai County, Board of Supervisors 1015 Fair Street, Prescott, AZ 86305 June 27, 2008 040093 Arkansas: Pope City of Russellville (07-06-2298P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *The Courier* The Honorable Raye Turner, Mayor, City of Russellville, P.O. Box 428, Russellville, AR 72801 March 3, 2008 050178 California: Fresno City of Coalinga (07-09-1375P) February 6, 2008; February 13, 2008; *Coalinga Record* The Honorable Trish Hill, Mayor, City of Coalinga, 155 West Durian Avenue, Coalinga, CA 93210 February 25, 2008 060045 Fresno Fresno County (07-09-1375P) February 6, 2008; February 13, 2008; *Coalinga Record* The Honorable Phil Larson, Fresno County Board of Supervisors, 2281 Tulare Street, 301 Hall of Records, Fresno, CA 93721 February 25, 2008 065029 Orange City of Irvine, CA (08-09-0082P) February 14, 2008; February 21, 2008; *Irvine World News* The Honorable Beth Krom, Mayor, City of Irvine, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, CA 92623 May 22, 2008 060222 San Luis Obispo Unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County (07-09-1955P) March 7, 2008; March 14, 2008; *The Tribune* The Honorable James Patterson, Chairman, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, 1055 Monterey Street, Room D-430, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 July 14, 2008 060304 Colorado: Adams City of Thornton (08-08-0056P) February 21, 2008; February 28, 2008; *Northglenn-Thornton Sentinel* The Honorable Erik Hansen, Mayor, City of Thornton, 9500 Civic Center Drive, Thornton, CO 80229 June 27, 2008 080007 Delaware: Sussex Unincorporated areas of Sussex County (08-03-0159P) February 13, 2008; February 20, 2008; *The Wave* The Honorable George B. Cole, Sussex County Council, P.O. Box 589, Georgetown, DE 19947 May 21, 2008 100029 Florida: Charlotte Unincorporated areas of Charlotte County (07-04-6248P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *Charlotte Sun* The Honorable Adam Cummings, Chairman, Charlotte County, Board of Commissioners 18500 Murdock Circle, Port Charlotte, FL 33948 January 17, 2008 120061 Collier City of Naples (07-04-6595P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *Naples Daily News* The Honorable Bill Barnett, Mayor, City of Naples, 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, FL 34102 January 28, 2008 125130 Georgia: Barrow Unincorporated areas of Barrow County (07-04-6544P) February 13, 2008; February 20, 2008; *The Barrow County News* The Honorable Douglas H. Garrison, Chairman, Barrow County Board of Commissioners, 233 East Broad Street, Winder, GA 30680 May 21, 2008 130497 Barrow City of Winder (07-04-6544P) February 13, 2008; February 20, 2008; *The Barrow County News* The Honorable George “Chip” Thompson, III, Mayor, City of Winder, P.O. Box 566, Winder, GA 30680 May 21, 2008 130234 Chatham Unincorporated areas of Chatham County (07-04-6193P) January 15, 2008; January 22, 2008; *Effingham Herald* The Honorable Pete Liakakis, Chairman, Chatham County Board of Commissioners, 124 Bull Street, Suite 220, Savannah, GA 31401 April 22, 2008 130030 Effingham Unincorporated areas of Effingham County (07-04-6193P) January 15, 2008; January 22, 2008; *Effingham Herald* The Honorable Verna H. Phillips, Chairman, Effingham County Board of Commissioners, 601 North Laurel Street, Springfield, GA 31329 April 22, 2008 130076 Idaho: Ada Unincorporated areas of Ada County (07-10-0624P) February 28, 2008; March 6, 2008; * Idaho Statesman* The Honorable Fred Tilman, Chairman, Ada County Board of Commissioners, 200 West Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 July 7, 2008 160001 Ada City of Meridian (07-10-0624P) February 28, 2008; March 6, 2008; *Idaho Statesman* The Honorable Tammy De Weerd, Mayor, City of Meridian, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642-2300 July 7, 2008 160180 Illinois: St. Clair Unincorporated areas of St. Clair County (07-05-5847P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *Belleville News-Democrat* The Honorable Mark Kern, Chairman, St. Clair County Board of Commissioners, 10 Public Square, Belleville, IL 62220 May 15, 2008 170616 Will City of Joliet (08-05-0389P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *Herald News* The Honorable Arthur Schultz, Mayor, City of Joliet, 150 West Jefferson Street, Joliet, IL 60431 January 23, 2008 170702 Will City of Lockport (08-05-0065P) February 14, 2008; February 21, 2008; *Herald News* The Honorable Tim Murphy, Mayor, City of Lockport, 222 East Ninth Street, Lockport, IL 60441 January 30, 2008 170703 Kansas: Douglas City of Lawrence (07-07-0691P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *Lawrence Daily Journal-World* The Honorable Sue Hack, Mayor, City of Lawrence, P.O. Box 708, Lawrence, KS 66044 January 28, 2008 200090 Sedgwick City of Wichita (08-07-0138P) March 7, 2008; March 14, 2008; *The Wichita Eagle* The Honorable Carl Brewer, Mayor, City of Wichita, 455 North Main Street, Wichita, KS 67202 February 26, 2008 200328 Maryland: Charles Unincorporated areas of Charles County (07-03-1449P) March 5, 2008; March 12, 2008; *Maryland Independent* The Honorable Wayne Cooper, President, Charles County Commissioners, P.O. Box 2150, La Plata, MD 20646 July 11, 2008 240089 Montgomery Unincorporated areas of Montgomery County (08-03-0615X) February 27, 2008; March 5, 2008; *The Gazette* Mr. Isiah Leggett, Montgomery County Executive, 101 Monroe Street, Second Floor, Rockville, MD 20850 June 5, 2008 240049 Wicomico City of Salisbury (07-03-1102P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *Daily Times* The Honorable Barrie Tilghman, Mayor, City of Salisbury, 1009 Monitor Court, Salisbury, MD 21801 January 18, 2008 240080 Wicomico Unincorporated areas of Wicomico County (07-03-1102P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *Daily Times* Mr. Rick Pollitt, Wicomico County Executive, P.O. Box 870, Salisbury, MD 21803 January 18, 2008 240078 Massachusetts: Norfolk Town of Wellesley (07-01-1131P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *Wellesley Townsman* The Honorable Owen H. Dugan, Chairman, Town of Wellesley Board of Selectmen, 525 Washington Street, Wellesley, MA 02181 May 15, 2008 250255 Norfolk Town of Wellesley (08-01-0508X) March 6, 2008; March 13, 2008; *Wellesley Townsman* The Honorable Owen H. Dugan, Chairman, Board of Selectmen, 525 Washington Street, Wellesley, MA 02181 July 11, 2008 250255 Plymouth Town of Rockland (08-01-0140P) March 15, 2008; March 22, 2008; *Rockland Standard* The Honorable Mary Parsons, Chair, Board of Selectmen, Town of Rockland, 242 Union Street, Rockland, MA 02370 June 16, 2008; 250281 Michigan: Monroe Village of Dundee (07-05-0218P) February 14, 2008; February 21, 2008; *The Monroe Evening News* The Honorable Ted Norris, Village President, Village of Dundee, Dundee Village Office, 350 West Monroe Street, Dundee, MI 48131 May 22, 2008 260313 Missouri: Cass City of Harrisonville (07-07-1674P) March 28, 2008; April 4, 2008; *Democrat Missourian* The Honorable Kevin W. Wood, Mayor, City of Harrisonville, 300 East Pearl Street, Harrisonville, MO 64701 August 4, 2008 290068 Lincoln Unincorporated areas of Lincoln County (07-07-1516P) March 26, 2008; April 2, 2008; *Troy Free Press* The Honorable Sean O'Brien, Presiding Commissioner, Lincoln County Commission, 201 Main Street, Troy, MO 63379 July 31, 2008 290869 New Jersey: Mercer Township of Hamilton (07-02-0844P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *Trenton Times* The Honorable John F. Bencivengo, Mayor, Township of Hamilton, 2090 Greenwood Avenue, Hamilton, NJ 08650-0150 May 15, 2008 340246 Union Township of Union (07-02-0942P) February 21, 2008; February 28, 2008; *Union Leader* The Honorable Clifton People, Jr., Mayor, Township of Union, 1976 Morris Avenue, Union, NJ 07083 May 22, 2008 340477 New York: Erie Town of Lancaster (07-02-0974P) March 7, 2008; March 14, 2008; *Buffalo News* The Honorable Robert H. Giza, Supervisor, Town of Lancaster, 21 Central Avenue, Lancaster, NY 14086 August 28, 2008 360249 Nebraska: Lincoln City of North Platte (07-07-0322P) February 28, 2008; March 6, 2008; *North Platte Telegraph* The Honorable G. Keith Richardson, Mayor, City of North Platte, 211 West Third Street, North Platte, NE 69101 July 7, 2008 310143 North Carolina: Brunswick Unincorporated Areas of Brunswick County (07-04-6003P) March 6, 2008; March 13, 2008; *The Brunswick Beacon* Mr. Marty Lawing, Manager, Brunswick County, P.O. Box 249, Bolivia, North Carolina 28422 January 30, 2008 370295 Martin Unincorporated Areas of Martin County (08-04-1028P) March 11, 2008; March 18, 2008; *The Enterprise* Mr. W. Russell Overman, Manager, Martin County, P.O. Box 668, Williamston, North Carolina 27892 February 29, 2008 370155 Wake City of Raleigh (07-04-3146P) February 4, 2008; February 11, 2008; *The News & Observer* The Honorable Charles Meeker, Mayor of the City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 February 29, 2008 370243 Wake City of Raleigh (07-04-4250P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *The News & Observer* The Honorable Charles Meeker, Mayor, City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 May 14, 2008 370243 Wake Unincorporated areas of Wake County (07-04-6027P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *The Wake Weekly* Mr. David Cooke, Manager, Wake County, 337 South Salisbury Street, Suite 1100, Raleigh, NC 27602 May 8, 2008 370368 Wake Town of Wake Forest (07-04-4250P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *The Wake Weekly* The Honorable Vivian Jones, Mayor, Town of Wake Forest, 401 Elm Avenue, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 May 14, 2008 370244 Wake Town of Wake Forest (07-04-6027P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *The Wake Weekly* The Honorable Vivian A. Jones, Mayor, Town of Wake Forest, 401 Elm Avenue, Wake Forest, NC 27587 May 8, 2008 370244 Ohio: Union Unincorporated areas of Union County (07-05-6234P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *Marysville Journal-Tribune* The Honorable Charles Hall, Union County Commissioner, 233 West Sixth Street, Marysville, OH 43040 January 11, 2008 390808 Oklahoma: Tulsa City of Tulsa (08-06-0093P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *Tulsa World* The Honorable Kathy Taylor, Mayor, City of Tulsa, 200 Civic Center, 11th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103 May 15, 2008 405381 Rhode Island: Newport Town of Tiverton (07-01-1087P) February 21, 2008; February 28, 2008; *Newport Daily News* The Honorable Louise Durfee, President, Town Council, 343 Highland Road, Tiverton, RI 02878 February 8, 2008 440012 South Carolina: Greenville Unincorporated areas of Greenville County (07-04-6423P) January 31, 2008; February 7, 2008; *Greenville News* The Honorable Herman G. Kirven, Jr., Chairman, Greenville County Council, 301 University Ridge, Suite 2400, Greenville, SC 29601 May 8, 2008 450089 Jasper Unincorporated areas of Jasper County (07-04-6192P) February 13, 2008; February 20, 2008; *Jasper County Sun* The Honorable George Hood, Chairman, County Council, Jasper County, P.O. Box 1149, Ridgeland, SC 29936 May 21, 2008 450112 Texas: Bexar City of Live Oak (07-06-1905P) March 7, 2008; March 14, 2008; *Daily Commercial Recorder* The Honorable Henry O. Edwards, Jr., Mayor, City of Live Oak, 8001 Shin Oak Drive, Live Oak, TX 78233 July 14, 2008 480043 Bexar City of San Antonio (08-06-0160P) February 11, 2008; February 18, 2008; *San Antonio Express-News* The Honorable Phil Hardberger, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 January 31, 2008 480045 Brazos City of College Station (07-06-0545P) March 6, 2008; March 13, 2008; *Bryan College Station Eagle* The Honorable Ben White, Mayor, City of College Station, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840 July 11, 2008 480083 Brazos City of College Station (07-06-1353P) February 14, 2008; February 21, 2008; *Bryan College Station Eagle* The Honorable Ben White, Mayor, City of College Station, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840 May 22, 2008 480083 Brazos City of College Station (07-06-1928P) February 14, 2008; February 21, 2008; *Bryan College Station Eagle* The Honorable Ben White, Mayor, City of College Station, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840 May 22, 2008 480083 Collin City of Allen (07-06-2335P) February 7, 2008; February 14, 2008; *Allen American* The Honorable Steve Terrell, Mayor, City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway, Allen, TX 75013 March 3, 2008 480131 Collin City of Frisco (07-06-1223P) February 22, 2008; February 29, 2008; *Frisco Enterprise* The Honorable Michael Simpson, Mayor, City of Frisco, 6101 Frisco Square Boulevard, Frisco, TX 75034 June 30, 2008 480134 Dallas City of Grand Prairie (07-06-1525P) February 8, 2008; February 15, 2008; *Rowlett Lakeshore Times* The Honorable Charles England, Mayor, City of Grand Prairie, P.O. Box 534045, Grand Prairie, TX 75053 May 16, 2008 485472 Denton Town of Northlake (07-06-2016P) March 6, 2008; March 13, 2008; *Denton Record-Chronicle* The Honorable Peter Dewing, Mayor, Town of Northlake, P.O. Box 729, Northlake, TX 76247 February 22, 2008 480782 Tarrant City of Grapevine (07-06-1674P) March 7, 2008; March 14, 2008; *Grapevine Courier* The Honorable William D. Tate, Mayor, City of Grapevine, P.O. Box 95104, Grapevine, TX 76099 July 14, 2008 480598 Tarrant City of North Richland Hills (07-06-1765P) February 28, 2008; March 6, 2008; *Dallas Morning News* The Honorable Oscar Trevino, Jr., P.E., Mayor, City of North Richland Hills, 7301 North East Loop 820, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 February 14, 2008 480607 Virginia: Independent City City of Winchester (07-03-1236P) March 27, 2008; April 3, 2008; *Winchester Star* The Honorable Elizabeth Minor, Mayor, City of Winchester, 422 National Avenue, Winchester, VA 22601 March 17, 2008 510173 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: April 21, 2008;. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10337 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety
(90)days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator of the Mitigation Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60. Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *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 final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 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. § 67.11 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Modified Communities affected Clarke County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7826 Alabama River 459 feet upstream of the intersection of Reedy Creek and Cross Section A +35 Unincorporated Areas of Clarke County. 2,439 feet downstream of intersection of Alabama River and Silver Creek Lake Road +61 East Basset Creek The point where East Basset Creek and County Highway 15 intersect +34 Unincorporated Areas of Clarke County. 10,906 feet upstream of the intersection of East Bassett Creek and County Highway 15 +45 Tombigbee River 1,332 feet downstream of the intersection of Tombigbee River and Southern Railway +35 Unincorporated Areas of Clarke County. 3,783 feet downstream of the intersection of Tombigbee River and U.S. Highway 43 +36 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Clarke County Maps are available for inspection at 114 Court Street, Grove Hill, AL 36451. Lee County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7748 Kentucky River-North Fork Kentucky River Approximately 150 feet downstream of confluence with Mirey Creek +668 Unincorporated Areas of Lee County. Approximately 1550 feet downstream of confluence with Blaines Branch +671 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. = North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Lee County Maps are available for inspection at Lee County Courthouse, 256 Main Street, Beattyville, KY 41311. Tunica County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-7724 Buck Island Bayou At Fields Road +189 Tunica County (Unincorporated Areas). At Highway 3 +189 Jack Lake Bayou At Jack Lake Crossing +189 Tunica County (Unincorporated Areas). At Verner Road +191 Minton Bayou At confluence with Jack Lake Bayou +189 Tunica County (Unincorporated Areas). At Fields Road +190 White Oak Bayou At Highway 4 +181 Tunica County (Unincorporated Areas). At Highway 61 +186 White Oak Bayou Tributary At Academy Road +190 Town of Tunica, Tunica County (Unincorporated Areas). At Fox Island Road +192 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Town of Tunica Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 909 River Road, Tybuca, MS 38676. Tunica County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Office of Planning and Development, 1061 South Court Street, Tunica, MS 38676. Dyer County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-D-7822 Mississippi River Approximately 720 feet downstream from the confluence of Obion River +268 Unincorporated Areas of Dyer County. County boundary +281 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Dyer County Maps are available for inspection at Building Inspector's Office, #1 Veterans Square, Dyersburg, TN 38025. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: April 21, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10336 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 27 [WT Docket Nos. 03-66; 03-67; 02-68; IB Docket No. 02-364; ET Docket No. 00-258; FCC 08-83] Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Reviewing of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; declaratory ruling. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission continues its efforts to transform its rules and policies governing the licensing of the Educational Broadband Service
(EBS)and the Broadband Radio Service
(BRS)in the 2495-2690 MHz (2.5 GHz) band, with respect to petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the *Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order (Big LEO Order on Reconsideration and AWS 5th MO&O and BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O and 2nd R&O)* . Also, the Commission's actions in this proceeding further refine its rules to enable licensees to deploy new and innovative wireless services in the 2.5 GHz band. We believe that these actions will facilitate the promotion of broadband service to all Americans. DATES: Effective June 9, 2008, except for § 27.1221(f), which contains information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The FCC will publish a document in the **Federal Register** announcing the effective date for that section. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet at *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the *Big LEO Third Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order,* please contact Howard Griboff, Policy Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, at 202-418-0657 or via the Internet at *Howard.Griboff@fcc.gov* or Jamison Prime, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, at 202-418-7474 or via the Internet at *Jamison.Prime@fcc.gov* . For further information concerning the *BRS/EBS Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* and *Declaratory Ruling* contact John Schauble, Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, at
(202)418-0797 or via the Internet to *John.Schauble@fcc.gov* . For additional information concerning Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at
(202)418-0214, or via the Internet at *PRA@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Third Order on Reconsideration and Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* ( *Big LEO 3rd Order on Reconsideration and AWS 6th MO&O and BRS/EBS 4th MO&O* ) and *Declaratory Ruling,* FCC 08-83, adopted on March 18, 2008 and released on March 20, 2008. The full text of this document, including attachments and related documents, is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of these documents and related Commission documents may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
(202)488-5300 or
(800)387-3160, contact BCPI at its Web site: *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . When ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 08-83. The complete text of these documents is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-08-83A1doc.* This full text may also be downloaded at: *http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html* . Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at
(202)418-7426, TTY
(202)418-7365, or via e-mail to *bmillin@fcc.gov* . Summary I. Introduction and Executive Summary 1. In this *Big LEO 3rd Order on Reconsideration and AWS 6th MO&O and Order and BRS/EBS 4th MO&O,* the Commission takes the following actions with respect to petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the *Big LEO Order on Reconsideration and AWS 5th MO&O and BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O and 2nd R&O* : • Grant a petition, in part, by adopting the part 1, subpart Q competitive bidding rules for future BRS auctions, seeking further comment on rules for future licenses for EBS spectrum, and directing WTB to review inventory and schedule auction(s) of unassigned BRS spectrum as soon as practicable. • Adopt the small business size standards and bidding credits proposed in the *BRS/EBS FNPRM* (“small business”—an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years; “very small business”—an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the same period; and an “entrepreneur”—an entity with attributed annual average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the same period). • Deny a petition requesting that the Commission permit licensees to self-transition before January 21, 2009, the deadline for proponents to file an Initiation Plan with the Commission. • Grant a petition asking the Commission to correct the inconsistency between the *BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O* and the text of § 27.1236(b)(6), and on the Commission's own motion, change references in §§ 27.1231(f), 27.1236(a), 27.1236(b)(1) and 27.1236(b)(6) to dates certain. • Deny as moot a petition requesting that the Commission clarify the requirements for multichannel video programming distribution
(MVPD)operators seeking to opt out of the transition. • Deny a petition seeking reconsideration on the effect of MVPD opt-out on adjacent licensees with overlapping Geographic Service Areas (GSAs). • Grant a petition asking the Commission to modify the height benchmarking rule to establish deadlines for compliance. • Grant a petition asking the Commission to modify the out-of-band emissions rule to establish deadlines for compliance. • Grant a petition asking the Commission to modify the out-of-band emissions rule to provide that out-of-band emissions are to be measured from the outermost edge of the channels when two or more channels are combined. • Deny a petition and reaffirm that only first adjacent channel licensees may file an interference complaint concerning adjacent channel interference. • Deny a petition and affirm the Commission's decision regarding out-of-band emissions for mobile digital stations. • Deny a petition asking to establish different deadlines for user stations to cure interference where an existing base station suffers interference from an outdoor antenna user station. • Grant a petition and allow licensees to maintain existing operations post-transition in the mid-band segment
(MBS)at 2572-2614 MHz, even if such operations exceed the current −73.0 dBW/m 2 contour limit. • Deny a petition asking the Commission to adopt technical standards should it become necessary to “split the football” to determine each licensee's GSA. • Grant a petition and permit BRS Channels No. 1 and 2/2A licensees to operate simultaneously in the 2150-2160/62 MHz and 2496-2690 MHz bands until every subscriber is relocated to the 2496-2690 MHz band. • Deny a petition asking the Commission to provide greater protection to BRS Channel No. 1 operations by reducing the power flux density
(PFD)radiated from the Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS)in the 2496-2500 MHz band. • Deny a petition and affirm the use of splitting the football for BRS Channels No. 2 and 2A licensees. • Deny petitions concerning overlaps between grandfathered EBS E and F Group licensees and co-channel BRS E and F Group licensees and affirm the existing rule. • Deny a petition asking for procedural changes to the 90-day negotiation period for significant GSA overlaps (more than 50 percent) between grandfathered EBS E and F Group channel licensees and incumbent BRS E and F Group channel licensees. • Grant a petition and reinstate a Gulf of Mexico Service Area. • Establish the Gulf of Mexico boundary 12 nautical miles from the shore. • Apply the existing technical rules to the Gulf of Mexico Service Area. • Grant a petition and affirm that EBS excess capacity leases executed before January 10, 2005, are limited to 15 years. • Deny a petition relating to pre-1998 legacy, video-only excess capacity leases but affirm that leases executed before January 10, 2005, are limited to 15 years. • Grant a petition and amend rules to permit lessees to offer EBS licensees/lessors the actual equipment used or comparable equipment on lease termination. • Deny a petition asking that licensees be permitted to demonstrate substantial service based on past-discontinued service. • Grant a petition asking for a new safe harbor for heavily encumbered or highly truncated Basic Trading Areas
(BTAs)and GSAs. • Grant a petition seeking minor changes in the EBS eligibility rule to conform it to other changes made by the Commission. • Grant a petition asking the Commission to adopt a rule that clarifies that commercial EBS licensees are not subject to educational programming requirements or the special EBS leasing restrictions. • Deny a petition asking the Commission to reinstate pending mutually exclusive applications for new EBS stations. • Grant in part requests for declaratory ruling and clarify how the splitting the football process for determining GSAs works with respect to licenses that were expired on January 10, 2005. II. BRS/EBS Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order A. Licensing Unassigned Spectrum in the Band 2. In the *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O,* with respect to licensing unassigned spectrum in the band, the Commission adopts rules providing that new licenses for unassigned BRS spectrum will be assigned by BTA, with each license authorizing access for all BRS spectrum not otherwise assigned either at the time of licensing or in the future. Transitions in adjacent BTAs will be protected by the requirements in our technical rules that new BTA licensees operate pursuant to the post-transition band plan and provide protection to adjacent operations. We will require new licensees to operate pursuant to the new band plan. This requirement will protect existing licensees by ensuring that any future high-power video operations are restricted to the MBS. B. BRS Competitive Bidding Rules 3. With respect to the assignment of new BRS licenses, we adopt the competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, consistent with the bidding procedures that have been employed in many previous auctions. Specifically, we will adopt the part 1 rules governing, among other things, competitive bidding design, designated entities, application and payment procedures, collusion issues, and unjust enrichment. We note that such rules would be subject to any modifications by the Commission in our ongoing part 1 proceeding. In addition, consistent with current practice, matters such as the appropriate competitive bidding design, minimum opening bids and reserve prices, will be determined by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau pursuant to its delegated authority. 4. With respect to bidding credits, we adopt the proposal contained in the *BRS/EBS FNPRM* to define three categories: “small business”—an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years; “very small business”—an entity with average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the same period; and “entrepreneur”—an entity with average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the same period. We also adopt the proposal to provide qualifying “small businesses” with a bidding credit of 15%, qualifying “very small businesses” with a bidding credit of 25%; and qualifying “entrepreneurs” with a bidding credit of 35%, consistent with § 1.2110(f)(2) of the Commission's rules. C. Transition 5. We reaffirm our decision that a licensee may not self-transition before January 21, 2009 and reiterate that a proponent-driven transition is the most efficient method of transitioning a BTA. In particular, we find that early self-transitions would complicate the transition process for the proponent and would not provide sufficient benefits to the self-transitioning licensee to offset those additional complications. 6. We grant a petition asking the Commission to correct the inconsistency between the *BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O* and the text of § 27.1236(b)(6), and on the Commission's own motion, change references in §§ 27.1231(f), 27.1236(a), 27.1236(b)(1) and 27.1236(b)(6) to dates certain. Also, we amend §§ 27.1231(f) and 27.1236(a), 27.1236(b)(1), and 27.1236(b)(6) to specify dates certain. Thus, §§ 27.1231(f) and 27.1236(a) reference January 21, 2009, the date the Initiation Plan must be filed with the Commission; § 27.1236(b)(1) references April 21, 2009, the date a self-transitioning licensee must notify the Commission; and § 27.1236(b)(6) references October 20, 2010, the date self-transitions must be completed. Because the time line for self-transitions parallels the timeline for proponent-driven transitions, we note that proponent-driven transitions must also be completed on or before October 20, 2010, unless stayed pending alternative dispute resolution. D. Multichannel Video Programming Distributors
(MVPD)Opt-Out 7. We dismiss as moot a petition for reconsideration asking us to adopt additional requirements for MVPD opt-out waiver requests because, at this point, such changes are unnecessary. The last date for filing requests to opt out of the transition plan was April 30, 2007, and that date has passed. To the extent the petitioner contends that a specific showing is defective, we will consider its arguments in the context of any opposition or petitions filed against specific waiver requests. 8. We also conclude that foreclosing an opt-out in the case of overlapping GSAs is unnecessary. Instead, the transitioning operator and the non-transitioning operator may resolve this situation among themselves or the transitioning licensee may file comments for Commission consideration in response to the non-transitioning operator's opt-out waiver request. E. Technical Issues 9. In the *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O,* we take the following actions with respect to the technical rules: • *Height Benchmarking Rule.* Requires a new or modified base station operating outside its height benchmark to cure interference to a base station operating within its height benchmark within 24 hours, either by limiting its received signal at the other party's base station to no more than −107 dBm/5.5 MHz or by reducing its antenna height to comply with the height benchmark. If the interferer is an existing base station that is causing interference to a new base station, the existing licensee has 90 days to comply; modifies the formula to calculate the height benchmark as proposed by Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA); declines to establish a rule requiring that parties cooperate in good faith to avoid interference. • *Out-of-band Emissions.* Declines to require all user stations, as opposed to mobile digital user stations, to attenuate their emissions at least 55 + 10 (log
(P)dB measured 5.5 megahertz from the channel edge; clarifies that when two or more contiguous channels are combined to form a single channel, out-of-band emissions are to be measured three megahertz from the outermost edges of the combined channel; requires that a new or modified base station comply with the out-of-band emission within 24 hours of receipt of a documented interference complaint from the first adjacent channel licensee. If the interferer is an existing base station that is causing interference to a new base station, the existing licensee has 60 days to comply; affirms the decision to limit the right to file a documented interference complaint to first adjacent channel licensees. • *Geographic Service Area Boundaries.* Declines to modify the methodology used to divide overlapping geographic service areas; affirms the policies adopted for treating pending applications for new or modified stations in the geographic service area framework. • *Grandfathering EBS Facilities.* Allows EBS facilities in the Middle Band Segment to exceed the −73.0 dBW/m 2 signal strength limit post-transition if needed to comply with the mandate that an EBS licensee be provided with facilities substantially similar to its pre-transition facilities. • *Technical Corrections.* Corrects various typographical errors in the existing rules. • *Simultaneous Operation on Old and New BRS Channels 1 and 2/2A.* Allows BRS Channel 1 and 2/2A licensees to operate simultaneously in their old channel locations in the 2150-2160/62 MHz band and their temporary, pre-transition locations at 2496-2500 MHz and 2686-2690 MHz band until every subscriber is relocated to the 2.5 GHz band. 10. In the *Big LEO 3rd Order on Reconsideration and AWS 6th MO&O,* we defer consideration of a petition for reconsideration filed by the Society of Broadcast Engineers asking us to adopt a revised band plan for Broadcast Auxiliary Service
(BAS)Channels A8-A10 that would remove BAS operations from the 2496-2502 MHz band. We deny BellSouth's request that we modify the pfd limits applicable to Code Division Multiple Access Mobile Satellite Service licensees in the 2496-2500 MHz band to correspond to the more stringent limits set forth in United States proposals to the World Radio Conference regarding protection of terrestrial operations in the 2500-2690 MHz band. 11. In the *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O,* we deny a request that primary BRS Channel 2 licensees not be required to split the football with secondary BRS Channel 2 licensees or with BRS Channel 2A licensees. F. Grandfathered E and F Group Channel EBS Stations 12. In the *4th MO&O,* the Commission denies petitions concerning overlaps between grandfathered EBS E and F Group licensees and co-channel BRS E and F Group licensees and affirm the existing rule § 27.1206 to eliminate overlaps of 50 percent or greater between grandfathered E and F Group channel EBS stations and co-channel incumbent BRS stations by splitting the football. Also, the Commission denies a petition asking for procedural changes to the 90-day negotiation period for significant GSA overlaps (more than 50 percent) between grandfathered EBS E and F Group channel licensees and incumbent BRS E and F Group channel licensees. In the case where the GSAs overlap 50% or greater, the Commission concluded that different treatment was warranted. Where there is a major overlap of service areas, splitting the football may no longer be the best solution for accommodating the needs of both licensees. In those cases, the Commission established a 90-day mandatory negotiation period during which both the BRS and EBS licensees have an explicit duty to work to accommodate each other's communications requirements. If, at the end of 90 days, the parties cannot reach a mutual agreement, the Commission then will split the football on its own accord. 13. All BRS and EBS licensees, including grandfathered E and F Group channel EBS licensees and incumbent BRS licenses that “split-the-football” with such licensees, may partition, disaggregate, assign, or transfer their spectrum. The use of the splitting the football mechanism to divide overlapping service areas does not preclude subsequent agreements to partition, disaggregate, assign, or transfer spectrum. The E and F channels, however, are classified as both EBS and BRS spectrum. We have granted waivers to allow assignments or transfers of grandfathered EBS stations to BRS licensees upon a suitable public interest showing. Similarly, upon a similar showing, an EBS licensee could partition part of its service area or disaggregate its spectrum to its co-channel BRS licensee. G. Gulf of Mexico Proceeding and Related Issues 14. In this *4th MO&O,* we reestablish three service areas in the Gulf of Mexico as requested by the American Petroleum Institute, establish the boundary of those service areas 12 nautical miles from the shore, and apply our existing technical rules to the Gulf Service Area which will provide Gulf licensees with the flexibility necessary to provide service. H. Leasing 15. The Commission clarifies that EBS excess capacity leases entered into prior to January 10, 2005 and that contain an automatic renewal clause, are grandfathered after January 10, 2005 if they have an automatic renewal clause effective after January 10, 2005, only to the extent that such leases do not exceed 15 years in total length (including the automatic renewal period(s)). This decision is consistent with our decision in the *Two-Way Order on Reconsideration.* Thus, these leases cannot be extended in perpetuity. To further clarify, lease terms for EBS leases entered under the rules and policies of the *BRS/EBS R&O* (those entered into between January 10, 2005 and July 18, 2006) are not limited by the Commission's rules (but are subject to relevant state laws limiting the length of contracts). Leases entered into under the rules and policies of the *BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O* (on or after July 19, 2006) may be up to 30 years in length, so long as the EBS licensee retains the right at year 15 and every 5 years thereafter to review its educational needs. 16. The Commission declines to void EBS leases for one-way only video services entered into prior to the release of the *Two-Way Order.* While we are concerned by the situation, we do not have the authority to void contracts executed by two private parties under the laws of individual states. We find, however, that the alleged unknown start date is contrary to the rules and policies adopted by the Commission in the *Two-Way Order,* which limited the term of EBS leases to 15 years from the date they are executed between the parties. Any other interpretation of the *Two-Way Order* would permit the warehousing of valuable spectrum for decades and is contrary to the underlying purpose of the rule. 17. In the *4th MO&O,* the Commission grants a petition and amends rules to permit lessees to offer EBS licensees/lessors the actual equipment used or comparable equipment on lease termination. In the *BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O,* the Commission amended § 27.1214(c) to clarify that the EBS licensee/lessor could “purchase or lease dedicated common equipment used for educational purposes in the event that the spectrum leasing arrangement” was terminated by either the EBS licensee/lessor or the lessee. We agree that the proposed rule change is an appropriate modification that reflects the fact that equipment is often shared among multiple licensees. I. Substantial Service 18. In the *4th MO&O,* the Commission denies a petition asking that licensees be permitted to demonstrate substantial service based solely on past-discontinued service. The Commission adopted a substantial service standard to ensure the prompt delivery of service to rural areas, to prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees or permittees, to promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services, and to facilitate the availability of broadband to all Americans. Permitting licensees to demonstrate substantial service by using past-discontinued service alone would not achieve any of these goals. Nevertheless, the Commission, by permitting the use of past-discontinued service as a factor in the substantial service determination, struck the appropriate balance between encouraging broadband development in the 2.5 GHz band and recognizing that licensees were permitted to discontinue service in anticipation of the transition to the new band plan and technical rules. 19. In the *4th MO&O,* the Commission agrees that it is appropriate to give some relief to licensees whose GSAs are heavily truncated to remedy a situation created by several factors and grants a petition asking for a new safe harbor for heavily encumbered or highly truncated BTAs and GSAs. We adopt a rule allowing licensees whose GSA is less than 1924 square miles in size to demonstrate substantial service by combining its GSA with an overlapping co-channel station licensed or leased by the licensee or its affiliate. J. EBS Eligibility 20. We grant a petition asking us to update the EBS eligibility rules to reflect the wider variety of services EBS licensees will use and offer. In particular, as written, the rules contemplate video programming where the licensee will know the specific content being offered in advance. We amend § 27.1201(a)(3) of the Commission's rules to clarify that an educational institution may receive education-enhancing broadband services, which it intends to use in furtherance of its educational mission. We also amend the language in § 27.1201(a)(3) regarding the distance from the transmit site for qualified schools supplying letters to be based on distance from the proposed center reference point, and should be further qualified to ensure that such school will be within the proposed geographic service area. 21. The Commission amends paragraph
(d)of § 27.1201 of the Commission's rules to clarify that commercial EBS licensees are not subject to the educational programming requirements in § 27.1203(b) through
(d)of the Commission's rules or the special EBS leasing requirements contained in § 27.1214 of the Commission's rules. K. Mutually Exclusive Applications 22. In the *4th MO&O,* the Commission denies a petition asking the Commission to reinstate pending mutually exclusive applications for new EBS stations. The Commission rejects the argument that D.C. Circuit's holding in *Kessler* v. *FCC* prohibited the dismissal of mutually exclusive applications. The dismissal of the mutually exclusive applications was necessary because neither the Commission nor the parties could resolve this mutual exclusivity under the then applicable site-based licensing scheme. The dismissal of those applications, therefore, furthers the Commission's goal of developing a licensing scheme that not only resolves issues of mutual exclusivity, but also ensures the efficient use of EBS spectrum by educators. Allowing the mutually exclusive applications to remain on file would create considerable uncertainty for potential proponents who would be uncertain of the ultimate licensee in a market. III. Declaratory Ruling 23. In this *Declaratory Ruling,* we clarify the treatment of the splitting the football policy for overlapping GSAs. On January 25, 2007, the Broadband Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted waivers *nunc pro tunc* to 41 late-filed EBS renewal applications. On September 28, 2007, Clearwire, Catholic Television Network/National ITFS Association (CTN/NIA), WCA, NextWave, Sprint Nextel, and Xanadoo (the Joint Commenters) filed a letter proposing clarifications that they believe represent a consensus position of a majority of the 2.5 GHz industry and that, on balance, most effectively and fairly advance the Commission's 2.5 GHz band goals and objectives. The Joint Commenters ask that we clarify our splitting the football treatment of expired licenses. 24. In addition, four licensees—Instructional Telecommunications Foundation, Inc. (ITF), New Trier Township, High School District 203 (New Trier), Shekinah Network (Shekinah) and Boston Catholic Television Center (BCTC)—have asked the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling that their Stations do not have to split the football with overlapping stations that were expired on January 10, 2005. 25. In response to the petitions for declaratory ruling and other filings we have considered, we issue the following clarifications of our splitting the football policy: • An active BRS or EBS licensee whose former protected service area overlapped with a co-channel license that was expired on January 10, 2005 need not split the football with such expired license if the licensee has not had its license reinstated. • If a BRS or EBS license was expired on January 10, 2005, and such license is later reinstated *nunc pro tunc* pursuant to a waiver granted for a late-filed renewal application granted after the adoption date of this *BRS/EBS Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order,* that licensee's geographic service shall not include any portion of its former protected service area that overlapped with another licensee whose license was in active status on January 10, 2005 and on the date the expired licensee's late-filed renewal application was granted, unless a finding is made that splitting the football is appropriate because of manifest Commission error or other unique circumstances. IV. Procedural Matters 26. *Paperwork Reduction Analysis:* This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” 27. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of requiring licensees to provide information concerning their base stations to any nearby licensee upon request, and find that this requirement will benefit companies with fewer than 25 employees because it will help them to enjoy interference-free operations. We anticipate that the information exchange will consist of a limited number of technical parameters of a licensee's operations that licensees will have already established and recorded for their own operational purposes. Because licensees will already have such information at their disposal, it will not be burdensome to convey such information when requested. Additionally, because licensees will only be required to submit such information upon request from a neighboring licensee, this significantly limits the amount of potential requests for information. Therefore, we conclude that this information exchange will not burden companies with fewer than 25 employees. 28. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judith Boley Herman, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-B441, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to < *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* >, and to Nicholas Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), via e-mail to *Nicholas_A._Fraser@ omb.eop.gov* or via fax at 202-395-5167. V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for BRS/EBS Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order 29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), we incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM).* Because we amend the rules in this *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O,* we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA. A. Need for, and Objectives of the Rules 30. In the *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O,* we continue to modify our rules to enable the transition of the 2.5 GHz band and the provision of new and innovative wireless services. Today, we adopt part I, subpart Q as the competitive bidding rules for available and unassigned Broadband Radio Service
(BRS)spectrum; designated entity rules to provide bidding credits for small businesses, very small businesses, and entrepreneurs; modify technical rules concerning emission limits, signal strength limits, and height benchmarking; special safe harbors for licensees whose Geographic Service Area
(GSA)is heavily encumbered or highly truncated; and create three Gulf of Mexico Service Area zones. 31. We believe the rules we adopt today will both encourage the enhancement of existing services using this band and promote the development of new innovative services to the public, such as providing wireless broadband services, including high-speed Internet access and mobile services. We also believe that our new rules will allow licensees to adapt quickly to changing market conditions and the marketplace, rather than to government regulation, in determining how this band can best be used. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the FRFA 32. No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms, “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Below, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions. 34. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service
(MDS)and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
(MMDS)systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service
(BRS)and Educational Broadband Service
(EBS)(previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. Some of those 440 small business licensees may be affected by the decisions in this *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O.* 35. In addition, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. This SBA small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses. 36. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions may be included in the definition of a small entity. EBS is a non-profit non-broadcast service. We do not collect, nor are we aware of other collections of, annual revenue data for EBS licensees. We find that up to 1,932 of these educational institutions are small entities that may take advantage of our amended rules to provide additional flexibility to EBS. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 37. This *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O* modifies the reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements previously adopted in this proceeding. We are adopting competitive bidding procedures for available and unassigned BRS spectrum, including small business size standards and bidding credits for a “small business” (an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years), a “very small business” (an entity with attributed average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years), and an “entrepreneur” (an entity with attributed average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million the preceding three years). We are also adopting two new safe harbors to enable BRS and EBS licensees whose GSA is heavily encumbered or highly truncated to meet the performance requirements for the 2.5 GHz band. We are also creating three new Gulf of Mexico GSAs, which will enable the provision of 2.5 GHz band wireless services in the Gulf of Mexico in the future. We are changing the technical rules concerning emission limits, signal strength limits, and antenna height benchmarking, including requiring licensees to exchange information. E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 38. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.” 39. Regarding our decision to adopt competitive bidding rules, we anticipate that our decision to adopt small business size standards and bidding credits for entities that meet the definition of small business, very small business, or entrepreneur will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Because the BRS spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band was auctioned in 1996, only 70 BTA licenses (of the 493 licenses originally available in 1996) are available for reassignment by competitive bidding. 40. Regarding our decision to adopt two new safe harbors for the demonstration of substantial service compliance, we do not anticipate any significant economic impact on small entities. These two safe harbors apply only to licensees that have heavily encumbered or highly truncated GSAs. Although the applicability of these two safe harbors is limited, they will enable licensees to meet both our performance requirements and our interference protection rules. 41. Regarding our decision to adopt three new Gulf of Mexico Service Area Zones, we do not anticipate any significant impact on small entities. We anticipate that spectrum in these GSAs will be used on oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. 42. Regarding our decision to modify various technical rules, we do not anticipate any significant impact on small entities. These modifications are minor. 43. The rules set forth in the *BRS/EBS 4th MO&O* will affect all entities that intend to provide BRS or EBS service in the 2.5 GHz band. VI. Report to Congress 44. The Commission will send a copy of this *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order,* including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* , including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . VII. Ordering Clauses 45. Accordingly, *it is ordered,* pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 706, that this *Third Order on Reconsideration, Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order* , and *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* is hereby adopted. 46. It is further ordered that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed in these proceedings are granted to the extent indicated and are otherwise denied. 47. It is further ordered, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and § 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, that the petitions for declaratory ruling filed by Instructional Telecommunications Foundation, Inc. on March 13, 2007, New Trier High School District #203 on July 26, 2007, Shekinah Network on November 27, 2007, and Boston Catholic Television Center, Inc. on December 14, 2007 are granted to the extent indicated herein and are otherwise denied. 48. *It is further ordered* that the proceeding entitled Amendment of parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's rules with regard to licensing in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No. 02-68 is reinstated. 49. *It is further ordered* that the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is adopted. 50. *It is further ordered* that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this *Third Order on Reconsideration, Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling,* including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 27 Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Equal employment opportunity, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Securities, Telecommunications. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 27 as follows: PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 1. 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. 2. Amend § 27.5 by revising paragraph (i)(2)(iii) and the note to paragraph (i)(2) to read as follows: § 27.5 Frequencies.
(i)* * *
(2)* * *
(iii)Upper Band Segment (UBS): The following channels shall constitute the Upper Band Segment: BRS Channel KH1: 2614.00000-2614.33333 MHz. BRS Channel KH2: 2614.33333-2614.66666 MHz. BRS Channel KH3: 2614.66666-2615.00000 MHz. EBS Channel KG1: 2615.00000-2615.33333 MHz. EBS Channel KG2: 2615.33333-2615.66666 MHz. EBS Channel KG3: 2615.66666-2616.00000 MHz. BRS Channel KF1: 2616.00000-2616.33333 MHz. BRS Channel KF2: 2616.33333-2616.66666 MHz. BRS Channel KF3: 2616.66666-2617.00000 MHz. BRS Channel KE1: 2617.00000-2617.33333 MHz. BRS Channel KE2: 2617.33333-2617.66666 MHz. BRS Channel KE3: 2617.66666-2618.00000 MHz. BRS Channel 2: 2618-2624 MHz. BRS/EBS Channel E1: 2624-2629.5 MHz. BRS/EBS Channel E2: 2629.5-2635 MHz. BRS/EBS Channel E3: 2635-2640.5 MHz. BRS/EBS Channel F1: 2640.5-2646 MHz. BRS/EBS Channel F2: 2646-2651.5 MHz. BRS/EBS Channel F3: 2651.5-2657 MHz. BRS Channel H1: 2657-2662.5 MHz. BRS Channel H2: 2662.5-2668 MHz. BRS Channel H3: 2668-2673.5 MHz. EBS Channel G1: 2673.5-2679 MHz. EBS Channel G2: 2679-2684.5 MHz. EBS Channel G3: 2684.5-2690 MHz. Note to paragraph (i)(2): No 125 kHz channels are provided for channels in operation in this service. The 125 kHz channels previously associated with these channels have been reallocated to Channel G3 in the upper band segment. 3. Amend § 27.13 by adding new paragraph
(h)to read as follows: § 27.13 License period.
(h)*BRS and EBS.* BRS and EBS authorizations shall have a term not to exceed ten years from the date of original issuance or renewal. Unless otherwise specified by the Commission, incumbent BRS authorizations shall expire on May 1 in the year of expiration. 4. Amend § 27.14 by adding new paragraph
(o)to read as follows: § 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.
(o)BRS and EBS licensees must make a showing of “substantial service” no later than May 1, 2011. Incumbent BRS licensees must file their “substantial service” showing with their renewal application. “Substantial service” is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal. Substantial service for BRS and EBS licensees is satisfied if a licensee meets the requirements of paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this section. If a licensee has not met the requirements of paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this section, then demonstration of “substantial service” shall proceed on a case-by-case basis. All substantial service determinations will be made on a license-by-license basis. Except for BTA licenses, BRS licensees must file their “substantial service” showing with their renewal applications. Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
(1)A BRS or EBS licensee has provided “substantial service” by:
(i)Constructing six permanent links per one million people for licensees providing fixed point-to-point services;
(ii)Providing coverage of at least 30 percent of the population of the licensed area for licensees providing mobile services or fixed point-to-multipoint services;
(iii)Providing service to “rural areas” (a county (or equivalent) with a population density of 100 persons per square mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census data) and areas with limited access to telecommunications services:
(A)For mobile service, where coverage is provided to at least 75% of the geographic area of at least 30% of the rural areas within its service area; or
(B)for fixed service, where the BRS or EBS licensee has constructed at least one end of a permanent link in at least 30% of the rural areas within its licensed area.
(iv)Providing specialized or technologically sophisticated service that does not require a high level of coverage to benefit consumers; or
(v)Providing service to niche markets or areas outside the areas served by other licensees.
(2)An EBS licensee has provided “substantial service” when:
(i)The EBS licensee is using its spectrum (or spectrum to which the EBS licensee's educational services are shifted) to provide educational services within the EBS licensee's GSA;
(ii)the EBS licensee's license is actually being used to serve the educational mission of one or more accredited public or private schools, colleges or universities providing formal educational and cultural development to enrolled students; or
(iii)the level of service provided by the EBS licensee meets or exceeds the minimum usage requirements specified in § 27.1214.
(3)An EBS or BRS licensee may be deemed to provide substantial service through a leasing arrangement if the lessee is providing substantial service under paragraph (o)(1) of this section. The EBS licensee must also be otherwise in compliance with this Chapter (including the programming requirements in § 27.1203 of this subpart).
(4)If the GSA of a licensee is less than 1924 square miles in size, and there is an overlapping co-channel station licensed or leased by the licensee or its affiliate, substantial service may be demonstrated by meeting the requirements of paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this section with respect to the combined GSAs of both stations.
(5)If the GSA of a BTA authorization holder, is less than one-half of the area within the BTA for every BRS channel, substantial service may be demonstrated for the licenses in question by meeting the requirements of paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this section with respect to the combined GSAs of the BTA authorization holder, together with any incumbent authorizations licensed or leased by the licensee or its affiliates. 5. Amend § 27.53 by revising paragraph
(m)introductory text and paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(4) to read as follows: § 27.53 Emission limits.
(m)For BRS and EBS stations, the power of any emissions outside the licensee's frequency bands of operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power
(P)measured in watts in accordance with the standards below. If a licensee has multiple contiguous channels, out-of-band emissions shall be measured from the upper and lower edges of the contiguous channels.
(2)For digital base stations, the attenuation shall be not less than 43 + 10 log
(P)dB, unless a documented interference complaint is received from an adjacent channel licensee with an overlapping Geographic Service Area. Mobile Satellite Service licensees operating on frequencies below 2495 MHz may also submit a documented interference complaint against BRS licensees operating on channel BRS No. 1 on the same terms and conditions as adjacent channel BRS or EBS licensees. Provided that a documented interference complaint cannot be mutually resolved between the parties prior to the applicable deadline, then the following additional attenuation requirements shall apply:
(i)If a pre-existing base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a new or modified base station located 1.5 km or more away, within 24 hours of the receipt of a documented interference complaint the licensee of the new or modified base station must attenuate its emissions by at least 67 + 10 log
(P)dB measured at 3 megahertz, above or below, from the channel edge of its frequency block and shall immediately notify the complaining licensee upon implementation of the additional attenuation. No later than 60 days after the implementation of such additional attenuation, the licensee of the complaining base station must attenuate its base station emissions by at least 67 + 10 log
(P)dB measured at 3 megahertz, above or below, from the channel edge of its frequency block of the new or modified base station.
(ii)If a pre-existing base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a new or modified base station located less than 1.5 km away, within 24 hours of receipt of a documented interference complaint the licensee of the new or modified base station must attenuate its emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P)−20 log (Dkm/1.5) dB measured at 3 megahertz, above or below, from the channel edge of its frequency block of the complaining licensee, or if both base stations are co-located, limit its undesired signal level at the pre-existing base station receiver(s) to no more than −107 dBm measured in a 5.5 megahertz bandwidth and shall immediately notify the complaining licensee upon such reduction in the undesired signal level. No later than 60 days after such reduction in the undesired signal level, the complaining licensee must attenuate its base station emissions by at least 67 + 10 log
(P)dB measured at 3 megahertz, above or below, from the channel edge of its frequency block of the new or modified base station.
(iii)If a new or modified base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a pre-existing base station located 1.5 km or more away, within 60 days of receipt of a documented interference complaint the licensee of each base station must attenuate its base station emissions by at least 67 + 10 log
(P)dB measured at 3 megahertz, above or below, from the channel edge of its frequency block of the other licensee.
(iv)If a new or modified base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a pre-existing base station located less than 1.5 km away, within 60 days of receipt of a documented interference complaint:
(a)The licensee of the new or modified base station must attenuate its OOBE by at least 67 + 10 log (P)−20 log (Dkm/1.5) measured 3 megahertz above or below, from the channel edge of its frequency block of the other licensee, or if the base stations are co-located, limit its undesired signal level at the other base station receiver(s) to no more than −107 dBm measured in a 5.5-megahertz bandwidth; and
(b)the licensee causing the interference must attenuate its emissions by at least 67 + 10 log
(P)dB measured at 3 megahertz, above or below, from the channel edge of its frequency block of the new or modified base station.
(v)For all fixed digital user stations, the attenuation factor shall be not less than 43 + 10 log
(P)dB at the channel edge.
(4)For mobile digital stations, the attenuation factor shall be not less than 43 + 10 log
(P)dB at the channel edge and 55 + 10 log
(P)dB at 5.5 megahertz from the channel edges. Mobile Satellite Service licensees operating on frequencies below 2495 MHz may also submit a documented interference complaint against BRS licensees operating on BRS Channel 1 on the same terms and conditions as adjacent channel BRS or EBS licensees. 6. Amend § 27.55 by revising paragraphs (a)(4)(i), (ii), and
(iii)to read as follows: § 27.55 Power strength limits.
(a)* * *
(4)* * *
(i)Prior to transition, the signal strength at any point along the licensee's GSA boundary does not exceed the greater of that permitted under the licensee's Commission authorizations as of January 10, 2005 or 47 dBμV/m.
(ii)Following transition, for stations in the LBS and UBS, the signal strength at any point along the licensee's GSA boundary must not exceed 47 dBμV/m. This field strength is to be measured at 1.5 meters above the ground over the channel bandwidth ( *i.e.* , each 5.5 MHz channel for licensees that hold a full channel block, and for the 5.5 MHz channel for licensees that hold individual channels).
(iii)Following transition, for stations in the MBS, the signal strength at any point along the licensee's GSA boundary must not exceed the greater of −73.0 + 10 log(X/6) dBW/m 2 , where X is the bandwidth in megahertz of the channel, or for facilities that are substantially similar to the licensee's pre-transition facilities (including modifications that do not alter the fundamental nature or use of the transmissions), the signal strength at such point that resulted from the station's operations immediately prior to the transition, provided that such operations complied with paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section. 7. Amend § 27.1201 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and
(d)to read as follows: § 27.1201 EBS eligibility.
(a)* * *
(3)Those applicant organizations whose eligibility is established by service to accredited institutional or governmental organizations must submit documentation from proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage. In place of this documentation, a State educational television
(ETV)commission may demonstrate that the public schools it proposes to serve are required to use its proposed educational usage. Documentation from proposed receive sites which are to establish the eligibility of an entity not serving its own enrolled students for credit should be in letter form, written and signed by an administrator or authority who is responsible for the receive site's curriculum planning. No receive site more than 35 miles from the proposed station's central reference point, or outside the applicants' proposed GSA, shall be used to establish basic eligibility. Where broadband or data services are proposed, the letter should indicate that the data services will be used in furtherance of the institution's educational mission and will be provided to enrolled students, faculty and staff in a manner and in a setting conducive to educational usage. Where traditional educational or instructional video services are proposed, the letter should indicate that the applicant's program offerings have been viewed and that such programming will be incorporated in the site's curriculum. Where educational or instructional video services are proposed, the letter should discuss the types of programming and hours per week of formal and informal programming expected to be used and the site's involvement in the planning, scheduling and production of programming. If other levels of authority must be obtained before a firm commitment to utilize the service can be made, the nature and extent of such additional authorization(s) must be provided.
(d)This paragraph applies to EBS licensees and applications licensed or filed pursuant to the provisions of § 27.1201(c) contained in the edition of 47 CFR parts 20 through 39, revised as of October 1, 2005, or §§ 74.990 through 74.992 contained in the edition of 47 CFR parts 70 through 79, revised as of October 1, 2004, and that do not meet the eligibility requirements of paragraph
(a)of this section. Such licensees may continue to operate pursuant to the terms of their existing licenses, and their licenses may be renewed, assigned, or transferred, so long as the licensee is otherwise in compliance with this chapter. Applications filed pursuant to the provisions of § 27.1201(c) contained in the edition of 47 CFR parts 20 through 39, revised as of October 1, 2005 or §§ 74.990 through 74.992 contained in the edition of 47 CFR parts 70 through 79, revised as of October 1, 2004 may be processed and granted, so long as such applications were filed prior to July 19, 2006. The provisions of §§ 27.1203(b) through
(d)and 27.1214 of this subpart do not apply to licenses governed by this paragraph. 8. Amend § 27.1207 by revising paragraph
(a)and the introductory text of paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 27.1207 BTA license authorization.
(a)Winning bidders must file an application (FCC Form 601) for an initial authorization.
(b)Initial authorizations for BRS granted after January 1, 2008, shall be blanket licenses for all BRS frequencies identified in § 27.5(i)(2) and based on the geographic areas identified in § 27.1208. Blanket licenses cover all mobile and response stations. 9. Revise § 27.1208 to read as follows: § 27.1208 BTA Service areas. Except for incumbent BRS licenses, BRS service areas are Basic Trading Areas
(BTAs)or additional service areas similar to BTAs adopted by the Commission. BTAs are based on the Rand McNally 1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at pages 38-39. The following are additional BRS service areas in places where Rand McNally has not defined BTAs: American Samoa; Guam; Gulf of Mexico Zone A; Gulf of Mexico Zone B; Gulf of Mexico Zone C; Northern Mariana Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, Puerto Rico; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone A are from an area twelve nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the north and east, to the limit of the Outer Continental Shelf to the south, and to longitude 91°00′ to the west. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone B are from an area twelve nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the north, to the limit of the Outer Continental Shelf to the south, to longitude 91°00′ to the east, and to longitude 94°00′ to the west. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone C are from an area twelve nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the north and west, to longitude 94°00′ to the east, and to a line 281 kilometers from the reference point at Linares, N.L., Mexico on the southwest. The Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, PR, service area consists of the following municipios: Adjuntas, Aguada, Aguadilla, Anasco, Arroyo, Cabo Rojo, Coamo, Guanica, Guayama, Guayanilla, Hormigueros, Isabela, Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Lajas, Las Marias, Maricao, Maunabo, Mayaguez, Moca, Patillas, Penuelas, Ponce, Quebradillas, Rincón, Sabana Grande, Salinas, San German, Santa Isabel, Villalba and Yauco. The San Juan service area consists of all other municipios in Puerto Rico. 10. Amend § 27.1214 by revising paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 27.1214 EBS spectrum leasing arrangements and grandfathered leases.
(c)All spectrum leasing arrangements involving EBS spectrum must afford the EBS licensee an opportunity to purchase or to lease the dedicated or common EBS equipment used for educational purposes, or comparable equipment in the event that the spectrum leasing arrangement is terminated. 11. Add § 27.1217 to read as follows: § 27.1217 Competitive Bidding Procedures for the Broadband Radio Service. Mutually exclusive initial applications for BRS licenses in the 2500-2690 MHz band are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart. 12. Add § 27.1218 to read as follows: § 27.1218 Designated Entities.
(a)*Eligibility for small business provisions.*
(1)A small business is an entity that, together with all attributed parties, has average gross revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding three years.
(2)A very small business is an entity that, together with all attributed parties, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
(3)An entrepreneur is an entity that, together with all attributed parties, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years.
(b)*Bidding credits.*
(1)A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small businesses, may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this chapter, to lower the cost of its winning bid on any of the licenses in this subpart.
(2)A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of very small businesses, may use a bidding credit of 25 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter, to lower the cost of its winning bid on any of the licenses in this subpart.
(3)A winning bidder that qualifies as an entrepreneur, as defined in this section, or a consortium of entrepreneurs, may use a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(i) of this chapter, to lower the cost of its winning bid on any of the licenses in this subpart. 13. Amend § 27.1221 by revising paragraphs
(b)through
(e)and adding a new paragraph
(f)to read as follows: § 27.1221 Interference protection.
(b)*Height Benchmarking.* Height benchmarking is defined for pairs of base stations, one in each of two proximate geographic service areas (GSAs). The height benchmark, which is defined in meters (hb m ) for a particular base station relative to a base station in another GSA, is equal to the distance, in kilometers, from the base station along a radial to the nearest point on the GSA boundary of the other base station squared (D km 2 ) and then divided by 17. That is, hb ( m ) = D km 2 /17. A base station antenna will be considered to be within its applicable height benchmark relative to another base station if the height in meters of its centerline of radiation above average elevation
(HAAE)calculated along the straight line between the two base stations in accordance with §§ 24.53(b) and
(c)of this chapter does not exceed the height benchmark (hb m ). A base station antenna will be considered to exceed its applicable height benchmark relative to another base station if the HAAE of its centerline of radiation calculated along the straight line between the two base stations in accordance with §§ 24.53(b) and
(c)of this chapter exceeds the height benchmark (hb <sup>m</sup> ).
(c)*Protection for Receiving Antennas not Exceeding the Height Benchmark.* Absent agreement between the two licensees to the contrary, if a transmitting antenna of one BRS/EBS licensee's base station exceeds its applicable height benchmark and such licensee is notified by another BRS/EBS licensee that it is generating an undesired signal level in excess of −107 dBm/5.5 megahertz at the receiver of a co-channel base station that is within its applicable height benchmark, then the licensee of the base station that exceeds its applicable height benchmark shall either limit the undesired signal at the receiver of the protected base station to −107dBm/5.5 megahertz or less or reduce the height of its transmission antenna to no more than the height benchmark. If the interfering base station has been modified to increase the EIRP transmitted in the direction of the protected base station, it shall be deemed to have commenced operations on the date of such modification. Such corrective action shall be completed no later than:
(i)24 hours after receiving such notification, if the base station that exceeds its height benchmark commenced operations after the station that is within its applicable height benchmark; or
(ii)90 days after receiving such notification, if the base station that exceeds its height commenced operations prior to the station that is within its applicable height benchmark. For purposes of this section, if the interfering base station has been modified to increase the EIRP transmitted in the direction of the victim base station, it shall be deemed to have commenced operations on the date of such modification.
(d)*No Protection from a Transmitting Antenna not Exceeding the Height Benchmark.* The licensee of a base station transmitting antenna less than or equal to its applicable height benchmark shall not be required pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section to limit that antennas undesired signal level to −107dBm/5.5 megahertz or less at the receiver of any co-channel base station.
(e)*No Protection for a Receiving-Antenna Exceeding the Height Benchmark.* The licensee of a base station receive antenna that exceeds its applicable height benchmark shall not be entitled pursuant to paragraph
(c)of this section to insist that any co-channel base station limit its undesired signal level to −107dBm/5.5 megahertz or less at the receiver.
(f)*Information Exchange.* A BRS/EBS licensee shall provide the geographic coordinates, the height above ground level of the center of radiation for each transmit and receive antenna, and the date transmissions commenced for each of the base stations in its GSA within 30 days of receipt of a request from a co-channel BRS/EBS licensee with an operational base station located in a proximate GSA. Information shared pursuant to this section shall not be disclosed to other parties except as required to ensure compliance with this section. 14. Amend § 27.1231 by revising paragraph
(f)introductory text to read as follows: § 27.1231 Initiating the transition.
(f)*Initiation Plan.* To initiate a transition, a potential proponent(s) must submit an Initiation Plan to the Commission at the Office of the Secretary in Washington, DC on or before January 21, 2009. 15. Amend § 27.1236 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (b)(6) to read as follows: § 27.1236 Self-transitions.
(a)If an Initiation Plan is not filed on or before January 21, 2009 for a BTA, BRS and EBS licensees in that BTA may self-transition by relocating to their default channel locations specified in § 27.5(i)(2) and complying with §§ 27.50(h), 27.53, 27.55 and 27.1221.
(b)* * *
(1)Notify the Secretary of the Commission on or before April 21, 2009 that it will self-transition (see paragraph
(a)of this section);
(6)Complete the self-transition on or before October 20, 2010. [FR Doc. E8-10099 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 73 90 Thursday, May 8, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0523; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-049-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections to detect cracks and corrosion on any existing repairs and at certain body stations of the visible surfaces of the wing to body terminal fittings including the web, flanges, and ribs; and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD results from reports of cracks found in the wing to body terminal fittings during routine inspections. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks and corrosion in the body terminal fittings, which could cause loss of support for the wing and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6577; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0523; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-049-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We have received reports of cracks found in the wing to body terminal fittings during routine inspections of certain Boeing Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. The cause of the cracks has been attributed to stress corrosion. The body terminal fittings are forgings made from 7079-T6 material. Cracks and corrosion in the body terminal fittings, if not corrected, could cause loss of support for the wing and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections to detect cracks and corrosion on any existing repairs and at certain body stations of the visible surfaces of the wing to body terminal fittings including the web, flanges, and ribs; and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative actions include removing the repair and doing a detailed inspection to detect cracks and corrosion of the fitting in the area covered by the repair. The corrective action includes contacting Boeing for repair instructions. FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type design(s). This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Referenced Service Bulletin.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Referenced Service Bulletin Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced Boeing service bulletin describe procedures for submitting information to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require that action. Costs of Compliance Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per product Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspections 20 $80 $1,600, per inspection cycle 5 $8,000 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 We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0523; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-049-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 23, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracks found in the wing to body terminal fittings during routine inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracks and corrosion in the body terminal fittings, which could cause loss of support for the wing and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Inspections and Corrective Actions
(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do detailed inspections and applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Repeat the detailed inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(g)If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, and Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the terminal fittings using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. No Information Submission
(h)Although Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007, specifies to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (SACO), FAA, ATTN: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6577; fax
(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, SACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 25, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10217 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0522; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-041-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) Airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) Airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Following in-flight test deployments on CL-600-2B19 aircraft, several Air-Driven generators
(ADGs)failed to come on-line. Investigation revealed that, as a result of a wiring anomaly that had not been detected during ADG manufacture, a short circuit was possible between certain internal wires and their metallic over-braided shields, which could result in the ADG not providing power when deployed. * * * The unsafe condition is that failure of the ADG could lead to loss of several functions essential for safe flight. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax* :
(202)493-2251. • *Mail* : U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery* : U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7303; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0522; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-041-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-10, dated February 5, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Following in-flight test deployments on CL-600-2B19 aircraft, several Air-Driven generators
(ADGs)failed to come on-line. Investigation revealed that, as a result of a wiring anomaly that had not been detected during ADG manufacture, a short circuit was possible between certain internal wires and their metallic over-braided shields, which could result in the ADG not providing power when deployed. This directive mandates checking of the ADG and modification of the ADG internal wiring, if required. It also prohibits future installation of unmodified ADGs. The unsafe condition is that failure of the ADG could lead to loss of several functions essential for safe flight. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-24-015, Revision A, dated December 18, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a **NOTE** within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 304 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $121,600, or $400 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0522; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-041-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by June 9, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, having serial numbers
(SNs)10004 and subsequent; and Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, having SN 15002 and subsequent; certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 24: Electrical Power. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Following in-flight test deployments on CL-600-2B19 aircraft, several Air-Driven generators
(ADGs)failed to come on-line. Investigation revealed that, as a result of a wiring anomaly that had not been detected during ADG manufacture, a short circuit was possible between certain internal wires and their metallic over-braided shields, which could result in the ADG not providing power when deployed. This directive mandates checking of the ADG and modification of the ADG internal wiring, if required. It also prohibits future installation of unmodified ADGs. The unsafe condition is that failure of the ADG could lead to loss of several functions essential for safe flight. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)For airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the serial number of the installed ADG. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the serial number of the ADG can be conclusively determined from that review. Table 1.—Bombardier Airplane Identification Model Serial No. CL-600-2C10 airplanes 10004 through 10265. CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 airplanes 15002 through 15162.
(i)If the serial number is not listed in paragraph 1.A of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-24-015, Revision A, dated December 18, 2006, no further action is required by this AD.
(ii)If the serial number is listed in paragraph 1.A of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-24-015, Revision A, dated December 18, 2006, before further flight, inspect the ADG identification plate and, as applicable, do the actions of paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) or (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A)If the identification plate is marked with the symbol “24-2”, no further action is required by this AD.
(B)If the identification plate is not marked with the symbol “24-2”, modify the ADG wiring in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(2)For all Model CL-600-2C10 airplanes having SN 10004 and subsequent, and Model CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 airplanes having SN 15002 and subsequent: As of the effective date of this AD, no ADG part number 604-90800-19 (761339E), having SN 0101 through 0132, 0134 through 0167, 0169 through 0358, 0360 through 0438, 0440 through 0456, 0458 through 0467, 0469, 0471 through 0590, 0592 through 0597, 0599 through 0745, 0747 through 1005, or 1400 through 1439, may be installed on any airplane, unless the identification plate of the ADG is identified with the symbol “24-2” (refer to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS10AG-24-2 for further information).
(3)Actions done before the effective date of this AD according to Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-24-015, dated May 17, 2004, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD, provided the ADG has not been replaced since those actions were done. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, 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: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7303; fax
(516)794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-10, dated February 5, 2008, and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-24-015, Revision A, dated December 18, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 25, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-10219 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0308; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-19] Modification of Class E Airspace; Rome, NY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E Airspace at Rome, NY. Additional airspace is necessary to support the amendment of the current Terminal Visual Flight Rule
(VFR)Radar Service Area
(TRSA)and to allow for a lower vectoring altitude known as the Minimum Vectoring Altitude
(MVA)for vectoring of both VFR and Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR)aircraft around the Rome, NY area. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management around the Griffiss Airport area. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2008-0308; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . You may review the public docket containing the rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Those wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-0308; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register's** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to modify Class E airspace at Rome, NY. On January 1, 2007, the Oneida County Airport, Utica, NY was permanently closed and operations moved to the Griffiss Airfield. Airspace in this area was modified as published in the **Federal Register** on September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51357). Analysis of operations has determined that there is a need for additional Class E5 airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth to enhance the management, safety and efficiency of air traffic services in the area. The local area Terminal VFR Radar Service Area
(TRSA)is being revised and there is a requirement for the base of the TRSA to not be below the associated Class E airspace. This modification would satisfy that requirement. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it proposes to modify Class E airspace at Rome, NY. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 will continue to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, effective September 15, 2007, is proposed to be amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA NY E5 Rome, NY [Revised] Griffiss Airfield, NY (Lat. 43°14′02″ N, long. 75°24′25″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within a 15-mile radius of Griffiss Airfield and within a 26-mile radius of the airport extending clockwise from a 125° bearing to a 200° bearing from the airport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 22, 2008. Lynda G. Otting, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. [FR Doc. E8-9852 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0336; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-4] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Fort Collins, CO AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate instrument flight rules
(IFR)operations from this airport located in mountainous terrain and enable positive control at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone
(202)366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0336; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone
(425)203-4537. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0336 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-4) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-0336 and Airspace Docket No. 08-ANM-4”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the **Federal Register's** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:
(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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins, CO. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007 is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. **ANM CO E2 Fort Collins, CO [New]** Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, CO (Lat. 40°27′07″ N., long. 105°00′41″ W.) Within a 5-mile radius of Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 28, 2008. Clark Desing, Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. E8-10191 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 91, 125, and 135 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29281; Notice No. 08-06] RIN 2120-AJ09 Removal of Regulations Allowing for Polished Frost on Wings of Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to remove provisions in its regulations that allow for operations with “polished frost” (i.e., frost polished to make it smooth) on the wings of airplanes operated under parts 125, 135, and certain airplanes operated under part 91. The rule would increase safety by not allowing operations with polished frost, which the FAA has determined increases the risk of unsafe flight. DATES: Send your comments on or before August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2007-29281 using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Or, go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this proposed rule contact Mike Frank, AFS-260, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone
(202)267-8166 ; facsimile
(202)267-5299, e-mail *mike.frank@faa.gov.* For legal questions concerning this proposed rule contact Bruce Glendening, Operations Law Branch—AGC-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone
(202)267-3073; facsimile
(202)267-7971, e-mail *bruce.glendening@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about the docket, privacy, and handling of proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator, including the authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447—Safety Regulation. Under section 44701 (a)(5), the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other things, prescribing regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce. I. Background Currently, 14 CFR 91.527 (a), 125.221 (a), and 135.227
(a)allow pilots to take off with frost adhering to wings or stabilizing or control surfaces if that frost has been polished to make it smooth. This frost is referred to as “polished frost.” This procedure first appeared in the **Federal Register** as Civil Air Regulation Draft Release No. 60-13, a proposed revision of part 47 of the Civil Air Regulations, on August 6, 1960. Since 1960, the FAA and others have accumulated an extensive amount of data that would indicate that any amount of contaminants on wings or critical surfaces could be detrimental to the flight characteristics of an aircraft. In Advisory Circular
(AC)135-17, the FAA recommends that all wing frost be removed prior to takeoff, and states that if an operator desires to polish the frost, the aircraft manufacturer's recommended procedures should be followed ( *http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet* ). No current aircraft manufacturer, however, has issued any recommended procedures for
(1)polishing frost, or
(2)conducting operations with polished frost. In addition, the FAA has no data to support practical guidance on determining how to polish frost on a surface to make it acceptably smooth, other than completely removing the frost and returning the airplane's critical lifting surfaces to uncontaminated smoothness. Moreover, the term “polished frost” is ambiguous since no standard of acceptable smoothness is provided. Also, means to ensure that the “polished frost” surface smoothness is equivalent to that of the uncontaminated airplane surface is operationally impractical. Subsequently, the FAA issued two Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFOs)—06002 and 06014— advising against the practice of polishing frost ( *http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/* ). In addition, there are at least 11 known accidents in which individuals attempted to “smooth” or polish frost, but the aircraft failed to generate enough lift and crashed shortly after takeoff. 1 There have been a number of other takeoff accidents and fatalities that have occurred when flightcrews have consciously decided to take off without removing frost from the wings of their aircraft. Following the January 4, 2002 accident at Birmingham, England, the United Kingdom Aircraft Accident Investigation Board recommended in its Safety Recommendation 2003-54 that the FAA, and all Authorities who follow FAA practice, delete all reference to ‘Polished Frost' within their regulations and ensure that the term is expunged from Operations Manuals. In addition, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)has issued numerous safety alerts urging operators to ensure that critical surfaces are free of all contamination prior to take off. 1 Nine of the 11 accidents would not have been prevented by this proposed rule, since the aircraft were involved in non-part 91 subpart F operations. Nevertheless, the FAA believes they illustrate the risk involved in flying with polished frost. II. General Discussion of the Proposals As previously mentioned, numerous FAA ACs and Safety Alerts have been issued since 1960 clearly pointing out the hazards of attempting to take off with any frost on aircraft wings or control surfaces, polished or not. Adverse aerodynamic effects for lifting surfaces begin as soon as frost begins to adhere to the surfaces. Determining either when sufficient polishing achieves a smooth surface or the smoothness of the contaminated surface without instrumentation is impracticable. The sheen of polished frost and its tactile smoothness can be misleading. In addition, the FAA believes achieving uniform smoothness on all lifting and control surfaces or even symmetrical smoothness in an operational environment is impossible to determine. Technical literature well documents the adverse aerodynamic effects of surface roughness, such as frost and other ice that adhere to aircraft surfaces. The literature indicates that surface roughness formed by frost and adhering ice can result in significant adverse aerodynamic effects for lifting surfaces, such as wings and flight control surfaces. For example,
(1)a contaminated wing's maximum lift may be reduced by 30 percent or more;
(2)the angle of attack for maximum lift may be reduced by several degrees;
(3)drag may be increased significantly; and
(4)the airplane's handling qualities and performance may change unexpectedly from that of the uncontaminated aircraft. The severity of these adverse aerodynamic effects varies significantly
(1)with the magnitude (height and density) and location of the surface roughness, and
(2)with the location of the roughness relative to the surface leading edge where significant variations may occur in the local airspeed and surface air loads. Therefore, the FAA has determined that complete removal of frost from critical surfaces to achieve uncontaminated surface smoothness is necessary to ensure acceptable airplane airworthiness. If all wing surfaces, other than those under the wing in the area of the fuel tank 2 , and control surfaces are not uniformly smooth upon take off, the FAA believes an unsafe condition exists. 2 Takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA. (See e.g., 14 CFR 125.221 (a)(2) and 135.227 (a)(2).) The FAA is proposing to amend §§ 91.527 (a)(3), 125.221 (a), and 135.227
(a)to remove language permitting pilots to take off with “polished frost” adhering to the wings or stabilizing or control surfaces. Within part 91 subpart F, the current text of § 91.527
(a)states that no pilot may take off an airplane that has—
(1)frost, snow, or ice adhering to any propeller, windshield, or powerplant installation or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system;
(2)snow or ice adhering to the wings or stabilizing or control surfaces; or
(3)any frost adhering to the wings or stabilizing or control surfaces, unless that frost has been polished to make it smooth. The FAA would amend the paragraph to remove the words “unless that frost has been polished to make it smooth.” Part 91 subpart F provides for the operation of large and turbine-powered multiengine airplanes and all fractional ownership program aircraft (regardless of category, class, weight, powerplant or number of engines). Therefore, the revised provisions in subpart F in this NPRM would affect the operation of all fractional ownership program aircraft under subpart K, regardless of whether the aircraft is large or small and regardless of whether the aircraft is single or multi-engine. Similarly, current §§ 125.221
(a)and 135.227
(a)provide that no pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, to a powerplant installation, or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system, except that takeoffs may be made with frost adhering to the wings, or stabilizing or control surfaces, if the frost has been polished to make it smooth. The FAA would amend those sections to delete the words “except * * * [t]akeoffs may be made with frost adhering to the wings, or stabilizing or control surfaces, if the frost has been polished to make it smooth.” These rule changes may also result in changes to an operator's operations specifications (OpSpecs) as they relate to ground deicing operations. In addition, the FAA is responding to a recommendation from the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee, established on April 8, 2003, which provided recommendations to the FAA regarding the safety and applicability of standards of parts 125, 135, and associated regulations. In this proposed rule, the FAA is therefore taking the opportunity to correct the structure of §§ 91.527(b), 125.221(c), and 135.227(c). Currently, in each of those paragraphs the phrase beginning with the words “unless the aircraft has * * *” appears to apply only to paragraph (2); however, that clause applies to all of the provisions of the paragraph. In 1995, the FAA issued a legal interpretation (included in the docket for this rulemaking action) to clarify that this language applies to both IFR flight into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions and VFR flight into known light or moderate icing conditions. The FAA is therefore proposing to re-structure those paragraphs accordingly. III. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there is no new information collection requirement associated with this proposed rule. IV. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations. V. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment V.1. Regulatory Evaluation Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking. In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed rule:
(1)Has benefits that justify its costs,
(2)is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
(3)is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
(4)would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5)would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and
(6)would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below. Operators and pilots would have at least four alternatives to choose from to deal with frost that may have accumulated on the wings of their aircraft. These include: using wing covers, waiting for the frost to melt, storing the aircraft in a heated hangar, or deicing the wing surface. The FAA believes that wing covers are the lowest-cost alternative. Assuming operators impacted by this proposed rule choose to use wing covers, they would incur total costs of roughly $164,000 ($130,000 discounted) over the ten year period from 2009 to 2018. Of these, $155,000 ($123,000 discounted) would accrue to operators in Alaska, and $9,500 ($7,500 discounted) would accrue to mainland U.S. operators. Benefits total roughly $460,000 ($320,000 discounted). About $433,000 ($301,000 discounted) in benefits would accrue in Alaska, while the remaining $27,000 ($19,000 discounted) would accrue in the mainland U.S. These benefits are attributed to averted accidents, injuries, and aircraft damage. Since benefits exceed costs for both Alaska and the mainland U.S., the FAA concludes the proposed rule is cost beneficial. The FAA calls for comments on this determination and requests that all comments be accompanied by clear and detailed supporting economic documentation. V.2. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
(RFA)establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. This proposed rule would improve aviation safety by removing references to the “polished frost” technique found in 14 CFR 91.527(a), 125.221(a), and 135.227(a). At this time there is no part 91 operator that has an authorized deicing program that incorporates the polished frost procedure; therefore, this rulemaking only affects on-demand and commuter services operating under parts 125 and 135. There are 57 operators operating 188 aircraft that would be affected by the rule. Based on the SBA size standard defining a small unscheduled air carrier as one having 1,500 employees or less per company, all of these operators are considered small entities. As a result, the Regulatory Flexibility Act applies. The FAA assumes that most operators would choose to buy and use wing covers to comply with the proposed rule. The other alternatives (waiting for the frost to melt, storing the aircraft in a heated hangar, or deicing the aircraft) are more expensive than using wing covers. The FAA estimates that operators would choose to buy wing covers at an initial cost of $400, plus minimal additional fuel costs and, if needed, an additional cost of $400 after five years to replace a worn wing cover. In Alaska, there are 21 operators with one aircraft apiece, and 30 operators operating the remaining 156 aircraft. In the mainland U.S., there are six operators operating 11 aircraft. The smallest operators operate only one plane, and would incur a cost of approximately $99 per year as a result of this rulemaking, a cost that the FAA does not consider significant. The operator that would be most impacted by the rule operates 16 affected aircraft, and would incur costs of approximately $1,584 per year as a result of this rulemaking. This operator has annual revenues of $5 million. The cost of this rulemaking represents 0.03 percent of the gross revenues of that operator, and the FAA does not consider that amount significant. As a result, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA requests comments from affected entities on this finding and determination. V.3. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would have only a domestic impact and would not affect international trade. V.4. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. VI. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications. VII. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska Section 40113(f) of 49 U.S.C. requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title 14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. Because the majority of potentially affected operators are in Alaska, this proposed rule could, if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA believes, however, that over 60% of aircraft currently operating in Alaska do not rely on this procedure. For the remainder of affected operators, the cost of compliance would be minimal. The FAA, therefore, specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule differently in intrastate operations in Alaska. VIII. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312 and involves no extraordinary circumstances. IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. X. Additional Information Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by— 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ); 2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* ; or 3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-9680. Be sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking. You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in paragraph (1). List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 91 Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight. 14 CFR Part 125 Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 135 Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 2. Amend § 91.527 by revising paragraphs
(a)and
(b)to read as follows: § 91.527 Operating in icing conditions.
(a)No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.
(b)No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless—
(1)The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system; or
(2)The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23; or
(3)The airplane meets transport category airplane type certification provisions. PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 3. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722. 4. Amend § 125.221 by revising paragraphs
(a)and
(c)to read as follows: § 125.221 Icing conditions: Operating limitations.
(a)No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, flight attitude instrument system, or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.
(c)No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless—
(1)The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system; or
(2)The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet appendix C of this part; or
(3)The airplane meets transport category airplane type certification provisions. PART 135—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 5. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105. 6. Amend § 135.227 by revising paragraphs
(a)and
(c)to read as follows: § 135.227 Icing conditions: Operating limitations.
(a)No pilot may take off an aircraft that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any rotor blade, propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, flight attitude instrument system, or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.
(c)No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless—
(1)The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system; or
(2)The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 of appendix A of this part; or
(3)The airplane meets transport category airplane type certification provisions. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2008. John M. Allen, Acting Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. E8-10246 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2008-0047] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the existing special anchorage area at Perth Amboy, New Jersey, at the junction of the Raritan River and Arthur Kill. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide for a safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more than 65 feet in length. This action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on the Raritan River and Arthur Kill, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2008-0047 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1)*Online: http://www.regulations.gov.*
(2)*Mail:* Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3)*Hand delivery:* Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4)*Fax:* 202-493-2251. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed rule, call Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management Coordinator, 718-354-4195. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation
(DOT)to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0047), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0047) in the Search Box, and click “Go >>.” You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, Room 210, Staten Island, New York 10305. Privacy Act Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.* Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose During times of tidal shifts, vessels moored near the edge of this Special Anchorage Area were found swinging out into the Raritan River Cutoff and the Raritan River federal channels. Since moored vessels in a Special Anchorage Area are exempt from the Inland Rules of the Road [Rule 30 (33 U.S.C 2030) and Rule 35 (33 U.S.C. 2035)]; vessels swinging out into these federal channels create a high risk of collision with larger commercial vessels that transit past this Special Anchorage Area especially at night and during times of inclement weather. Also, when larger commercial vessels maneuver to avoid a collision with recreation vessels that swing out into these channels it creates a hazardous, close-quarters passing situation with other larger commercial vessels operating within these federal channels. This rulemaking is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by adding amplifying information regarding the use of the Special Anchorage Area. This would be accomplished by adding the following note to the regulation: “Note: This area is limited to vessels no greater than 20 meters in length and is primarily for use by recreational craft on a seasonal or transient basis. These regulations do not prohibit the placement of moorings within the anchorage area, but requests for the placement of moorings should be directed to the local government to ensure compliance with local and state laws. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when anchored, will at any time extend beyond the limits of the area. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. Mariners are encouraged to contact the local harbormaster for any additional ordinances and to ensure compliance with additional applicable state and local laws.” This will greatly increase navigation safety and is necessary due to the boundary of the Special Anchorage Area being within 15 yards of the Raritan River Cutoff and Raritan River federal channels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would add a regulatory note to the Special Anchorage Area. This note would require all moorings be placed so that no vessel, when anchored, will at any time extend beyond the limits of the Special Anchorage Area. We are proposing this rulemaking due to the information provided in the Background and Purpose section above. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that this proposal would require recreational vessels to anchor a greater distance from the Raritan River Cutoff and Raritan River federal channels. As displayed on the government navigation charts, the current boundaries of the Special Anchorage Area and adjacent federal channels nearly overlap. This would greatly reduce the possibility of marine casualties, pollution incidents, or human fatalities that could be caused by these recreational vessels anchoring within, or near, the federal channels and causing a collision with any of the approximately 5,000 commercial vessels that transit the Raritan River Cutoff Channel on an annual basis. Vessel transit statistics from the ACOE Navigation Data Center are available online at: *http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm.* Additionally, vessels would still be able to anchor in an area approximately 850 to 1,050 yards wide by 480 to 980 yards long off the southern Perth Amboy shoreline. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational vessels intending to anchor immediately adjacent to, Raritan River Cutoff and Raritan River federal channels and cause a marine casualty, pollution incident, or human fatalities, due to a commercial vessel colliding with the anchored or moored recreational vessel(s). It would also affect commercial vessels by reducing the possibility that they will encounter hazardous, close-quarters passing conditions created by recreational vessels within the channels. However, the requirements contained within the regulatory note would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons: The proposed revised special anchorage area would require vessels to moor, or anchor, at a greater distance from the Raritan River and Raritan River Cutoff federal channels reducing the threat of collision with vessels transiting the adjacent federal channel. This Special Anchorage Area was never designed to authorize vessels to anchor, or moor, in a manner where they would extend into the federal channel creating a hazard to navigation. Additionally, vessels would still be able to anchor in an area approximately 850 to 1,050 yards wide by 480 to 980 yards long off the southern Perth Amboy shoreline. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management Coordinator, Coast Guard Sector New York at 718-354-4195. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” supporting this preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage Grounds. Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.60, by revising paragraph
(aa)to read as follows: § 110.60 Port of New York and vicinity.
(aa)*Perth Amboy, NJ.* All waters bound by the following points: 40°30′19.0″ N, 074°15′46.0″ W; thence to 40°30′17.0″ N, 074°15′39.0″ W; thence to 40°30′02.8″ N, 074°15′45.0″ W; thence to 40°29′36.0″ N, 074°16′09.2″ W; thence to 40°29′30.8″ N, 074°16′22.0″ W; thence to 40°29′47.2″ N, 074°16′52.0″ W; thence to 40°30′02.0″ N, 074°16′43.0″ W, thence along the shoreline to the point of origin. Note: This area is limited to vessels no greater than 20 meters in length and is primarily for use by recreational craft on a seasonal or transient basis. These regulations do not prohibit the placement of moorings within the anchorage area, but requests for the placement of moorings should be directed to the local government to ensure compliance with local and state laws. All moorings shall be so placed that no vessel, when anchored, will at any time extend beyond the limits of the area. Fixed mooring piles or stakes are prohibited. Mariners are encouraged to contact the local harbormaster for any additional ordinances and to ensure compliance with additional applicable state and local laws. Dated: April 23, 2008. Timothy V. Skuby, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-10259 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 5b [Docket ID ED-2008-OM-0004] RIN 1880-AA85 Privacy Act Regulations AGENCY: Office of Management, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) proposes to amend its regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act). These proposed regulations would amend the Department's current Privacy Act regulations to exempt from certain Privacy Act requirements investigative material in a new system of records to be maintained by the Department that will be known as the Office of Inspector General Data Analytics System
(ODAS)(18-10-02). Specifically, the exemption would apply to materials compiled by the Department's Office of Inspector General
(OIG)for law enforcement purposes to identify internal control weaknesses and system issues and to improve methods of data modeling and annual audit planning in order to detect and investigate fraud, waste, and mismanagement in Department programs and operations. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “How To Use This Site.” • *Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery.* If you mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 8166, Washington, DC 20202-5920. Attention: NOPR Comments. Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelley Shepherd, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 8166, Washington, DC 20202-5920. Telephone:
(202)245-7077. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. We also invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments, in person, at the National Library of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. For more information on inspecting public comments call
(202)205-4410. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Background Under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix) Inspectors General, including the Department's Inspector General (OIG), are responsible for conducting, supervising, and coordinating audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the Federal agency for which their office is established. The Department intends to establish a new system of records entitled the “Office of Inspector General Data Analytics System”
(ODAS)(18-10-02) in order to facilitate the OIG's performance of this statutory duty. The new system of records will be managed by the OIG's Information Technology Audits and Computer Crimes Investigations (ITACCI) division, which is responsible for providing computer programming, data acquisition and analysis and statistical modeling in support of OIG operations. ITACCI will use this new system of records to gather data from Department systems and analyze them using data modeling techniques to detect waste, fraud, abuse, and internal control weaknesses and to identify potential violations of laws, rules and regulations. These data will include information related to transactions between the Department and individuals and entities that have applied for and/or received grants, contracts, loans, or payments from the Department. ITACCI will conduct data modeling on these data, using statistical and mathematical techniques, in order to predict anomalies indicating fraudulent activity and to predict which transactions have a high probability of fraudulent activity. ITACCI will review this information to determine whether further action is warranted. If so, ITACCI will refer potential violations of law, rules, or regulations that it identifies to other divisions of OIG for investigation, audit, or inspection, as appropriate. Thus, the ODAS will contain data related to transactions with the Department, as well as information related to ITACCI's review and investigation of that data for law enforcement purposes. Pursuant to section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Secretary, through rulemaking, may exempt from a limited number of Privacy Act requirements a system of records that contains investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes. The investigatory materials in the ODAS will fall within the scope of section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act because the system will consist of investigatory materials compiled for purposes of enforcing Federal legal requirements applicable to individuals and entities receiving Department funds. Significant Proposed Regulations Exempt Systems (§ 5b.11(c)) *Statute:* Section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act provides that the head of any agency may promulgate rules to exempt any system of records from the requirements in sections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and
(f)of the Privacy Act if the system of records contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes other than material related to criminal subjects and investigations that is within the scope of section (j)(2) of the Privacy Act. Section (k)(2) provides, however, that, in the event that any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that the individual would otherwise be entitled to by Federal law, or for which the individual would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the material, the material must be provided to the individual, unless the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished the information to the Department under an express promise, or, prior to September 27, 1975, an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence. *Current Regulations:* The Department does not currently claim any exemption under section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act for the investigatory materials that will be maintained in the ODAS. However, the Department claims exemptions under this section for two other OIG systems of records—the Investigative Files of the Inspector General (18-10-01) and the Hotline Complaint Files of the Inspector General (18-10-04). *Proposed Regulations:* The Department proposes to claim an exemption under section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act for investigatory materials that will be maintained in the ODAS. *Reasons:* As authorized by section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act and for the reasons specified in this section, the Secretary of Education proposes to exempt investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes in the ODAS from the following provisions of the Privacy Act and corresponding Departmental regulations: 1. Section (c)(3) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3)) and 34 CFR 5b.9(c)(3) require the Department to make an accounting of disclosures from a system of records available to the individual named in the record at the individual's request. The Secretary proposes to exempt the investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes in the ODAS because if OIG made this accounting available to a target individual, it could impede or compromise the OIG's investigation efforts by prematurely revealing its existence and nature. In addition, if OIG were to make this accounting available to a target individual, the target could compromise, interfere with, or make witnesses reluctant to cooperate with the OIG investigation, and this could lead to the suppression, alteration, or destruction of evidence. 2. Sections (d)(1) through
(4)and
(f)of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1) through
(4)and (f)) and 34 CFR 5b.5(a)(1) and (c), 5b.7, and 5b.8 require the Department to provide access to records pertaining to an individual requestor, to follow specific procedures relating to requests for correction or amendment of records, and to notify an individual of the existence of records pertaining to him or her upon request. The Secretary proposes to exempt the investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes in the ODAS from these requirements because providing an individual with access to investigative materials and permitting the individual to contest the records' contents and to try to force changes to the information contained therein could interfere with and compromise the ability of OIG to conduct an orderly and unbiased investigation of potential violations of laws, rules, and regulations. 3. Section (e)(1) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1)) and 34 CFR 5b.4(a)(1) require the Department to maintain in its records only “relevant and necessary” information about an individual. This provision is inappropriate for OIG's investigatory duties because it is not always possible to detect the relevance or necessity of each piece of information reported to the OIG or collected in the preliminary phase of an investigation. In some cases, it is only after the information is evaluated in light of other evidence that its relevance and necessity are clear. In other cases, what may appear to be a relevant and necessary piece of information may become irrelevant in light of further inquiry or investigation. In order not to impede the OIG's investigation of potential violations of laws, rules, and regulations, the Secretary believes it is appropriate to exempt the investigatory materials in the ODAS from this requirement. 4. Section (e)(4)(G) and
(H)of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and (H)) require the Department to publish notice of procedures for notification, access, and correction of records in the system. If the Department exempts the investigatory materials in the ODAS from the underlying Privacy Act requirements, notification of these requirements would be illogical. For this reason, the Department proposes to exempt the ODAS investigatory materials from this requirement as well. Executive Order 12866 1. Potential Costs and Benefits Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined to be necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits would justify the costs. Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits We do not view this proposed regulatory action as imposing any new costs as the Department is proposing only to exempt itself from having to meet limited Privacy Act requirements. We view the potential benefits as decreasing the risk that individual(s) whose actions are being investigated could interfere with or compromise the ability of the OIG to conduct an orderly and unbiased investigation of potential violations of laws, rules, and regulations. 2. Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: • Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated? • Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity? • Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? • Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§” and a numbered heading; for example, § 5b.11 Exempt systems.) • Could the description of the proposed regulations in the “Significant Proposed Regulations” section be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how? • What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand? Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the ADDRESSES section. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification The Secretary certifies that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These regulations involve procedural rights of individuals under the Privacy Act. Individuals are not considered to be “entities” under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 These proposed regulations do not contain any information collection requirements. Intergovernmental Review This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Assessment of Educational Impact The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does not apply.) List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 5b Privacy. Dated: May 2, 2008. Michell Clark, Assistant Secretary for Management. For the reasons discussed herein, the Department of Education proposes to amend part 5b of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 5b—PRIVACY ACT REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 5b continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 5 U.S.C. 552a. 2. Section 5b.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text to read as follows: § 5b.11 Exempt systems.
(c)*Specific systems of records exempted under (k)(2)* .
(1)The Department exempts the Investigative Files of the Inspector General ED/OIG (18-10-01), the Hotline Complaint Files of the Inspector General ED/OIG (18-10-04), and the Office of Inspector General Data Analytics System
(ODAS)(18-10-02) from the following provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a and this part to the extent that these systems of records consist of investigatory material and complaints that may be included in investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes: [FR Doc. E8-10110 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0648; FRL-8563-5] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; States of South Dakota and Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Pollution AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plans
(SIPs)submitted by the States of South Dakota and Wyoming that address interstate transport with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM <sup>2.5</sup> ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA has determined that the Interstate Transport declarations submitted by South Dakota on May 15, 2007, and by Wyoming on May 3, 2007, satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provisions, also known as the “good neighbor” provisions, that a state SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air pollutant emissions from sources or activities in the state from adversely affecting another state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the States' SIP revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views these as non-controversial SIP revisions and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0648, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *videtich.callie@epa.gov* and *mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov* . • *Fax:*
(303)312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). • *Mail:* Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. • *Hand Delivery:* Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instruction on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,
(303)312-6436, *mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: April 23, 2008. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E8-10100 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-B-7775] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-chance) Flood Elevations
(BFEs)and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7775, to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151, or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-3151 or (e-mail) *bill.blanton@dhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. *Administrative Procedure Act Statement.* This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* , and do not fall under the APA. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. *Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.* This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 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. § 67.4 [Amended] 2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: State City/town/county Source of flooding Location ** * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Existing Modified City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Virginia City of Virginia Beach Atlantic Ocean Approximately 550 feet east of Sandpiper Lane approximately 1.5 miles south of Little Island District Park +4 +10 Approximately 150 feet east of Sandpiper Lane approximately 1 mile south of Little Island District Park +4 +10 Approximately 300 feet north of Porpoise Lane between Sandfiddler Road and Sandpiper Road +9 +10 Approximately 1200 feet south of Porpoise Lane between Sandfiddler Road and Sandpiper Road +9 +10 Numerous locations along the Atlantic shoreline (extending inland up to 1 mile) from Cape Henry to the southern-most corporate limit of VA Beach. AO zones with depths ranging 1-2 feet & X unshaded zones are now AE or VE zones with BFEs ranging 4-11 feet None +11 Virginia City of Virginia Beach Chesapeake Bay Immediately south of Oceanview Avenue between Fentress Avenue and Seaview Avenue None +6.8 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Virginia Beach Maps are available for inspection at 2405 Courthouse Drive, Building 2, Third Floor, Virginia Beach, VA 23456. Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ** * Elevation in feet
(NGVD)+ Elevation in feet
(NAVD)# Depth in feet above ground Effective Modified Communities affected Mohave County, Arizona, and Incorporated Areas Beaver Dam Wash 1 mile downstream of Old U.S. 91 None +1800 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. 2.3 miles upstream of Old U.S. 91 None +1926 Big Montana Wash Approximately 1,325 feet downstream of Black Mountain Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 425 feet downstream of Ramar Road None +534 Approximately 100 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +603 Approximately 1,325 feet downstream of Black Mountain Road None +767 Approximately 380 feet upstream of Tesota Road None +876 Big Montana Wash Overflow Approximately at confluence with Big Montana Wash None #1 City of Bullhead City. Bojorquez Wash Approximately 150 feet upstream of Country Club Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 120 feet upstream of Country Club Road None +504 Cerbat Wash Approximately 700 feet downstream of Ramada Road None +2478 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2765 Cerbat Wash Tributary 1A Approximately 1,400 feet downstream of Unkar Drive None +2563 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Bolsa Drive None +2630 Chaparral Wash Approximately at upstream side of Newberry Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Acacia Road None #2 Approximately 300 feet downstream of Country Club Road None +504 Approximately 400 feet downstream of Country Club Road None +504 Approximately 400 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +548 Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Acacia Way None +726 Approximately 0.68 mile upstream of Acacia Way None +778 Chaparral Wash Tributary 1 Approximately 0.48 mile downstream of Acacia Way None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 0.75 mile downstream of Acacia Way None #1 Approximately 1,355 feet downstream of Acacia Way None #2 Approximately 0.60 mile downstream of Acacia Way None #2 Approximately 1,300 feet downstream of Acacia Way None +670 Approximately 650 feet upstream of Acacia Way None +717 Chaparral Wash Tributary 2 Approximately 830 feet downstream of Havasupai Road None #2 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 830 feet downstream of Havasupai Road None +726 Approximately 50 feet downstream of Havasupai Road None +749 Chemehuevi Wash Approximately 1,170 feet downstream of Sweetwater Avenue None +669 City of Lake Havasu, Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 0.80 mile upstream of Chicksaw Drive None +1374 Colorado River Approximately at the upstream side of Interstate 40 None +465 City of Bullhead City, Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 250 feet downstream of Davis Dam None +514 Davis Wash Approximately 700 feet upstream of La Puerta Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 0.53 mile downstream of La Puerta Road None #1 Approximately 0.40 mile downstream of La Puerta Road None #2 Approximately 100 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +522 Approximately 100 feet downstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None +967 Approximately 100 feet upstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None +987 Davis Wash Tributary 1 Approximately 550 feet upstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Davis Wash Tributary 1 of Tributary 1 Approximately 550 feet upstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Davis Wash Tributary 2 Approximately 550 feet upstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Davis Wash Tributary 3 Approximately 530 feet upstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Davis Wash Tributary 4 Approximately 500 feet upstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Pegasus Ranch Road None #1 Davis Wash Tributary 5 Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of McCormick Blvd None #1 City of Bullhead City. Dump Wash Approximately 100 feet upstream of Bullhead Parkway None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 300 feet upstream of State Route 95 None #1 Approximately 1,850 feet downstream of Bullhead Parkway None #1 Approximately 100 feet downstream of Bullhead Parkway None #2 Approximately upstream side of State Route 95 None #2 Approximately 0.40 mile upstream of Lost Hills Road None #2 El Dorado Wash Approximately 700 feet downstream of London Bridge Road None +462 City of Lake Havasu. Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of Jamaica Blvd None +1276 Fort Mohave Wash Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of State Route 95 None #1 City of Bullhead City, Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 0.57 mile upstream of Arroyo Vista Drive None #2 Approximately 150 feet upstream of confluence with Soto Wash None #2 Fox Wash Approximately 0.64 mile upstream of State Route 95 None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 1,200 feet downstream of Tera Loma Road None #1 Approximately 1,730 feet downstream of Bullhead Parkway None #2 Approximately 1,450 feet downstream of State Route 95 None #2 Approximately 700 feet downstream of State Route 95 None #3 Approximately 0.63 mile downstream of Tera Loma Road None +491 Approximately 600 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +511 Approximately 0.64 mile upstream of State Route 95 None +642 Approximately 1,700 feet downstream of Bullhead Parkway None +802 Approximately 1,950 feet upstream of Bullhead Parkway None +903 Green Wash Approximately 250 feet upstream of confluence with Williams Wash None +703 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 1.42 miles upstream of confluence with Green Wash Tributary 2 None +1465 Green Wash Tributary 1 Approximately 70 feet upstream of confluence with Green Wash None +967 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of confluence with Green Wash None +1450 Green Wash Tributary 2 Approximately 0.41 mile upstream of confluence with Green Wash None #1 City of Bullhead City. Havasupai Wash at Bullhead City Approximately 870 feet upstream of Camino del Rio Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 870 feet upstream of Camino del Rio Road None +504 Havasupai Wash at Bullhead City Tributary 1 Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Miracle Mile Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 0.50 mile upstream of Miracle Mile Road None +651 Approximately 0.82 mile upstream of Miracle Mile Road None +691 Havasupai Wash at Lake Havasu City Approximately 1,060 feet downstream of London Bridge Road None +452 City of Lake Havasu. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Paso de Oro Drive None +1506 Highland Wash Approximately 300 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +518 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 325 feet upstream of Bullhead Parkway None +693 Indian Peak Wash Approximately 360 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +543 City of Lake Havasu, Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 470 feet upstream of Black Hill Drive None +1439 Mockingbird Wash Approximately 875 feet downstream of Osborn Drive None +754 City of Lake Havasu. Approximately 0.78 mile upstream of McCulloch Blvd S None +1258 Montana Wash Approximately 0.72 mile upstream of Rolling Hills Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 0.42 mile upstream of Bullhead Parkway None #2 Approximately 120 feet downstream of Riverfront Road None +505 Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Goldrush Road None +827 Montana Wash Overflow Approximately 50 feet downstream of Arcadia Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately upstream side of Arriba Road None #1 Approximately 800 feet upstream of Jacarta Road None #2 Montana Wash Tributary 1 Approximately 150 feet upstream of confluence with Montana Wash None +1126 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Unnamed Road None +1198 Neptune Wash Approximately 550 feet downstream of London Bridge Road None +455 City of Lake Havasu. Approximately 0.47 mile upstream of Avalon Avenue None +832 Old Trails Wash Approximately 750 feet downstream of Third Street None +3299 City of Kingman. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of U.S. 93/U.S. 66 None +3428 Old Trails Wash Tributary Approximately 790 feet downstream of Center Street None +3361 City of Kingman. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Buchanan Street None +3410 Richardo Wash Approximately 1,400 feet downstream of Terra Loma Road None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 50 feet downstream of State Route 95 None #1 Approximately 100 feet upstream of State Route 95 None #2 Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Terra Loma Road None #2 Approximately 800 feet upstream of confluence with Fox Wash None +491 Sacramento Wash Tributary 6 Approximately 250 feet upstream of Bolsa Drive None +2635 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2762 Sacramento Wash Tributary 6C Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Redwall Drive None +2668 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 1,025 feet upstream of Chino Drive None +2830 Sacramento Wash Tributary 6D Approximately 650 feet downstream of State Route 68 None +2789 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 290 feet upstream of Chino Drive None +2819 Secret Pass Wash Approximately downstream side of Pass Canyon Road None #3 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County, City of Bullhead City. Approximately 1.18 miles upstream of Bullhead Parkway None #4 Approximately 250 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +515 Approximately 50 feet downstream of State Route 95 None +527 Approximately 1.23 miles upstream of Bullhead Parkway None +1073 Approximately 2 miles upstream of Bullhead Parkway None +1188 Shadow Canyon Wash Approximately 870 feet downstream of Corwin Road None +563 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 320 feet upstream of Mountain View Road None +668 Shadow Canyon Wash Overflow Approximately upstream side of Central Park Avenue None +540 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 450 feet upstream of Central Avenue None +550 Short Creek Approximately 1.6 miles downstream of State Route 389 None +4857 City of Colorado City, Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County Approximately 50 feet upstream of State Route 389 None +4933 Short Creek Tributary 1 Approximately 320 feet downstream of Township Avenue None +4939 City of Colorado City. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Arizona Avenue None +5027 Silver Creek Wash Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Bullhead Parkway None #3 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 0.56 miles upstream of State Route 95 None #3 Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of State Route 95 None #3 Approximately 1.04 miles upstream of State Route 95 None #3 Approximately 500 feet downstream of Bullhead Parkway None #3 Approximately 0.62 miles upstream of Bullhead Parkway None #4 Approximately 500 feet upstream of Plata Caleta Road None #4 Silver Creek Wash Tributary 1 Approximately 0.47 miles upstream of Bullhead Parkway None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 0.38 mile upstream of confluence with Silver Creek Wash None #3 Approximately 200 feet upstream of confluence with Silver Creek Wash None #4 Silver Creek Wash Tributary 2 Approximately 0.83 mile upstream of confluence with Silver Creek Wash None #2 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of confluence with Silver Creek Wash None #3 Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of confluence with Silver Creek Wash None #4 Soto Wash Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of State Route 95 None #1 City of Bullhead City. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Arroyo Vista Road None #2 Approximately 100 feet downstream of State Route 95 None #2 Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Mohave Community College Road None +515 Approximately 0.36 mile upstream of Arroyo Vista Road None +758 Approximately 0.65 mile upstream of Arroyo Vista Drive None +803 Thirteen Mile Wash Approximately 75 feet upstream of Limit of Detailed Study None +2478 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2803 Thirteen Mile Wash Overflow 1 Approximately 620 feet downstream of Unkar Drive None +2575 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Bolsa Drive None +2658 Thirteen Mile Wash Overflow 2 Approximately 770 feet downstream of Chuar Drive None +2599 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 1,260 feet upstream of Bolsa Drive None +2655 Thirteen Mile Wash Overflow 3 Approximately 1,660 feet downstream of Adobe Road None +2757 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2793 Unnamed Wash 10 Approximately upstream side of Airway Avenue None +3450 City of Kingman. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Interstate 40 None +3510 Unnamed Wash 10 Overflow Approximately 200 feet upstream of confluence with Unnamed Wash 6 None +3491 City of Kingman. Approximately 795 feet downstream of confluence with Unnamed Wash 6 None +3499 Unnamed Wash 13 Approximately 50 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 50 feet upstream of confluence with Unnamed Wash East Golf Course None #2 Approximately 300 feet upstream of Lippan Blvd None #3 Unnamed Wash 13 East Golf Course At Approximately Clubhouse Road None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 13 Overflow Approximately 700 feet upstream of Lippan Blvd None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Lippan Blvd None #2 Unnamed Wash 13 Tributary 1 Approximately 150 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 13 Tributary 1 of Tributary 1 Approximately downstream side of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 13 Tributary 1 of Tributary 2 Approximately upstream side of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 13 Tributary 1 of Tributary 2 of Tributary 1 Approximately 200 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 13 Tributary 2 Approximately 200 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 13 Tributary 2 of Tributary 1 Approximately 350 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 13 West Golf Course Approximately 50 feet downstream of Desert Lakes Drive None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 14 Approximately 750 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #2 Approximately 50 feet upstream of Mountain View Road None +553 Approximately 475 feet upstream of Antelope Drive None +676 Unnamed Wash 14 Tributary 1 Approximately 100 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Unnamed Wash 15 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Boundary Cone Road None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 400 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #2 Approximately 400 feet upstream of Boundary Cone Road None +524 Approximately 450 feet upstream of Bison Avenue None +652 Unnamed Wash 15 Tributary 1 Approximately 450 feet downstream of Ashley Street None #1 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Bison Avenue None #2 Unnamed Wash 6 Approximately 280 feet downstream of Andy Devine Road None #1 City of Kingman. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Andy Devine Avenue None +3446 Approximately 50 feet upstream of Interstate 40 None +3491 Unnamed Wash 6 Overflow Approximately 800 feet downstream of Railroad Tracks None +3459 City of Kingman. Approximately 1,070 feet upstream of Railroad Street None +3487 Unnamed Wash 7 (With Berm) Approximately 50 feet upstream of Andy Devine Road None +3502 City of Kingman. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Hulapai Mountain Road None +3530 Unnamed Wash 7 (Without Berm) Approximately 250 feet downstream of Railroad Tracks None #1 City of Kingman. Unnamed Wash 9 Approximately 100 feet downstream of Lead Street None #1 City of Kingman. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Lead Street None #2 Virgin River Approximately 2.7 miles downstream of Scenic Blvd None +1598 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Interstate 15 None +1817 Wash A Approximately 1750 feet downstream of Redwall Drive None +2678 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2771 Wash B Approximately 0.45 mile downstream of Bolsa Drive None +2606 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2783 Wash B Tributary 1A Approximately 0.07 mile downstream of Redwall Drive None +2662 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 1,760 feet upstream of U.S. 68 None +2861 Wash B Tributary 1B Approximately 900 feet downstream of Shipp Drive None +2763 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2777 Wash B Tributary 1C Approximately 250 feet upstream of confluence with Wash B Tributary 1A None +2753 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County Approximately 150 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2784 Wash C Approximately 1,700 feet downstream of Shinarump Drive None +2493 Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County Approximately 200 feet upstream of Shipp Drive None +2829 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Bullhead City Maps are available for inspection at 1255 Marina Blvd, Bullhead City, AZ 86442. City of Colorado City Maps are available for inspection at 25 S. Central, Colorado City, AZ 86021. City of Kingman Maps are available for inspection at 310 N. 4th Street, Kingman, AZ 86401. City of Lake Havasu Maps are available for inspection at 2330 McCulloch Blvd North, Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Maps are available for inspection at 500 Merriman Avenue, Needles, CA 92363. Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County Maps are available for inspection at 700 W. Beale Street, Kingman, AZ 86402. Washington County, Oregon, and Incorporated Areas Dairy Creek Approximately 85 feet downstream of P&W Railroad *147 *149 Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, City of Hillsboro. Approximately 125 feet upstream of NW Susbauer Road *152 *155 West Fork Dairy Creek Approximately .8 miles upstream of NW Wilson River Highway None *191 City of Banks. Approximately .72 miles downstream of NW Banks Road None *192 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. ADDRESSES City of Banks Maps are available for inspection at 100 S. Main Street, Banks, OR 97106. City of Hillsboro Maps are available for inspection at 150 East Main Street, Hillsboro, OR 97123. Unincorporated Areas of Washington County Maps are available for inspection at 155 North First Ave., Ste. 300, Hillsboro, OR 97124. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: April 21, 2008. David I. Maurstad, Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. E8-10335 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 27 [WT Docket Nos. 03-66; 03-67; 02-68; IB Docket No. 02-364; ET Docket No. 00-258; FCC 08-83] Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Reviewing of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether to assign Educational Broadband Service
(EBS)spectrum in the Gulf of Mexico. It also seeks comment on how to license unassigned and available EBS spectrum. Specifically, we seek comment on whether it would be in the public interest to develop a scheme for licensing unassigned EBS spectrum that avoids mutual exclusivity; we ask whether EBS eligible entities could participate fully in a spectrum auction; we seek comment on the use of small business size standards and bidding credits for EBS if we adopt a licensing scheme that could result in mutually exclusive applications; we seek comment on the proper market size and size of spectrum blocks for new EBS licenses; and we seek comment on issuing one license to a State agency designated by the Governor to be the spectrum manager, using frequency coordinators to avoid mutually exclusive EBS applications, as well as other alternative licensing schemes. The Commission must develop a new licensing scheme for EBS in order to achieve the Commission's goal of facilitating the development of new and innovative wireless services for the benefit of students throughout the nation. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 7, 2008. Submit reply comments on or before August 6, 2008. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 08-83, or by WT Docket No. 03-66, WT Docket No. 03-67, WT Docket No. 02-68, IB Docket No. 02-364, or ET Docket No. 00-258, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone:
(202)418-0530 or TTY:
(202)418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact John Schauble, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, at
(202)418-0797 or via the Internet to *John.Schauble@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the FCC's *Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM),* FCC 08-83, adopted on March 18, 2008, and released on March 20, 2008. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
(202)488-5300, facsimile
(202)488-5563, or via e-mail at *fcc@bcpiweb.com.* The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-08-83A1doc.* This full text may also be downloaded at: *http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html.* Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at
(202)418-7426, TTY
(202)418-7365, or via e-mail to *bmillin@fcc.gov.* Summary BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM 1. We seek comment on whether and how we license EBS spectrum in the Gulf of Mexico. Commenters should address the issue of whether there is a need in the Gulf of Mexico for the type of educational services that EBS is designed to meet. Because there are no schools or universities in the Gulf of Mexico, we seek comment on whether any changes to our educational use requirements are appropriate for the Gulf of Mexico. 2. We also seek further comment on the appropriate licensing scheme for new EBS licenses. We note that the opportunities presented by the new technical rules and band plan create additional demand for EBS spectrum, and that EBS eligible entities have not been able to file applications for new stations since 1995. The record developed to date is insufficient for us to adequately weigh the various options for licensing EBS spectrum, including options that might avoid mutually exclusive applications. 3. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Budget Act) expanded the Commission's competitive bidding authority under section 309(j) of the Communications Act by adding, among other things, provisions governing auctions for broadcast and other previously exempt services. In a subsequent order, the Commission concluded that the legislation required that mutually exclusive applications for new Instructional Television Fixed Service
(ITFS)stations be subject to auction. The Commission concluded that ITFS did not fall within the exemption from competitive bidding for noncommercial educational broadcast stations. The Commission expressed concern that section 309(j), as adopted, might not reflect Congress' intent with regard to the treatment of competing ITFS applications. Given the instructional nature of the service and the reservation of ITFS spectrum for noncommercial educational use, the Commission thought it possible that Congress did not intend its expansion of our auction authority in the Budget Act to include that service. Accordingly, the Commission did not proceed immediately with an auction of ITFS applications but sought Congressional guidance with regard to assigning licenses for ITFS by competitive bidding and proposed that Congress exempt ITFS applications from competitive bidding. In 2000, the Commission opened a settlement window to resolve mutual exclusivity between applications by allowing payments to applicants in return for dismissing their applications and permitting agreements providing for the authorization to be awarded to a non-applicant third party. 4. In 2003, the Commission reiterated its prior conclusion that mutually exclusive applications for new ITFS stations would be subject to competitive bidding and noted the Commission's attempt to seek Congressional guidance on this issue. It also held that there would be no opportunity to file new ITFS applications, amendments, or modifications of any kind of station (except for applications that involved minor modifications, assignment of licenses, or transfer of control) while the Commission undertook a major restructuring of the 2.5 GHz band plan and technical rules. The Commission also sought comment on potential options for assigning licenses for unassigned ITFS spectrum by competitive bidding. While the Commission later lifted the freeze on modification applications, the freeze on applications for new EBS stations remained in place. 5. In the 2004 *BRS Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* , the Commission proposed to assign new EBS spectrum licenses using competitive bidding. The Commission also sought comment on geographic areas for new licenses, frequency blocks for new licenses, rules for auctions, bidding credits for small businesses and designated entities, and auctioning spectrum as a means of transitioning areas where a proponent has not come forward within the deadline established by the Commission. 6. Notwithstanding the Commission's prior determinations that applications for initial EBS spectrum licenses are not exempt from competitive bidding under the Communications Act, today, we seek comment on a mechanism for assigning EBS licenses by competitive bidding among applicants, as well as through other means that would avoid mutual exclusivity among applications, obviating any need for competitive bidding. 5. Given various characteristics of eligible EBS licensees that are unique among potential Commission licensees, a licensing mechanism that depends on competitive bidding to assign licenses may not provide many otherwise eligible EBS licensees with a full opportunity to participate, accordingly, we seek further comment on the appropriate licensing mechanism for new EBS licenses. We do so without prejudging the appropriate time for issuing new EBS licenses, whether pursuant to competitive bidding or an alternative assignment mechanism. 6. We seek comment on several threshold questions involving the possibility of adopting a licensing scheme that provides for mutually exclusive applications and competitive bidding. First, do EBS eligible entities, in general, have the authority to bid for spectrum licenses? Second, if EBS eligible entities have the authority to bid for spectrum, do they have the authority to bid for spectrum outside of their respective jurisdictions? We seek comment on whether educational institutions would be able to competitively bid for Basic Trading Areas (BTAs), given that school districts are usually smaller than counties, while BTAs can be very large and frequently bisect state boundaries. If EBS eligible entities cannot bid for spectrum outside of their respective jurisdictions, but are otherwise able to bid for spectrum, we seek comment on whether educational institutions could form a consortium or some other joint entity to bid for spectrum in areas larger than their respective jurisdictions and as large as a BTA. 7. Moreover, we seek comment on how we should structure the auction to ensure that licenses are disseminated among a wide variety of applicants. In this connection, we seek comment on whether we should prohibit non-profit educational organizations from participating in an auction and limiting eligible bidders to EBS eligible entities that are publicly supported or privately controlled educational institutions accredited by the appropriate State department of education or the recognized regional and national accrediting organization. 8. We propose to conduct any auction of the EBS spectrum in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, consistent with many of the bidding procedures that have been employed in previous auctions. Specifically, we propose to employ the part 1 rules governing, among other things, competitive bidding design, designated entities, application and payment procedures, collusion issues, and unjust enrichment. 9. We seek comment on whether we should adopt bidding credits and small business size standards in the auction of EBS spectrum. 10. We seek comment on the size of the spectrum blocks to be auctioned. Under one possible scheme, the winning bidder would receive both the three low-power channels and the one high-power channel assigned to the group. We could also auction the high-power channels in the group separately from the low-power channels in the group. A third option would be to license all of the available spectrum in the Lower Band Segment
(LBS)and Upper Band Segment
(UBS)as one frequency block and all of the available Middle Band Segment
(MBS)spectrum as a separate frequency block. 11. With respect to a geographic area licensing scheme, we seek comment on the size of the area to be licensed. Several commenters recommend that we license available and unassigned EBS spectrum by BTA to correspond to the BRS licensing area. We could also assign licenses by State. We also seek comment on whether we should license smaller areas such as cellular market areas. If we decide to license the low-power channels separately from the high-power channels, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a different geographic area for the MBS channels. 12. We also seek comment on whether special eligibility or spectrum aggregation limits would be appropriate or necessary to ensure that public and private educational institutions can successfully bid for spectrum. 13. If, as a result of the record developed in response to this *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* , we learn that very few EBS eligible entities can bid for spectrum, we may find that the public interest of making this spectrum available will lead us to adopt a licensing scheme that avoids competitive bidding. In this connection, we seek comment on all available options for granting geographic area licenses without granting one of multiple mutually exclusive applications. Commenters proposing such options should provide a detailed description of how their proposed option would work, describe what they believe the proper geographic area and channel blocks should be for proposed licenses, and explain why they believe their proposed licensing scheme would allow vacant EBS spectrum to be rapidly placed into use by EBS-eligible licensees and meet the educational, spectrum policy, and broadband goals underlying EBS. 14. One option would be to issue one license to a State agency designated by the Governor to be the spectrum manager for the entire State, using frequency coordinators to avoid mutually exclusive EBS applications, as well as other alternative licensing schemes. In connection with this state licensing option, we seek comment on whether any modifications to our Secondary Markets leasing rules would be appropriate for these state licenses. We also seek comment on whether any modifications to our special leasing rules for EBS stations would be appropriate for state licenses. 15. Under spectrum manager leasing arrangements and *de facto* transfer leasing arrangements, the licensee must meet the eligibility requirements in the Commission's rules. Thus, the State agency designated by the Governor would have to meet the eligibility requirements of § 27.1201 of our rules. We seek comment on whether any restrictions on a state's leasing discretion would be necessary to ensure that the full range of educational entities have access to EBS spectrum. 16. We also seek comment on whether any modifications to our special leasing rules for EBS stations would be appropriate for state licenses. Under § 27.1214 of our rules, a licensee must comply with certain educational programming requirements and retain the opportunity to purchase or to lease dedicated or common EBS equipment used for educational purposes or comparable equipment if the lease terminates. 17. Another option would adopt a licensing scheme similar to the one we use to license private land mobile radio spectrum. Under this approach, applicants could submit applications for new EBS stations at any time to certified frequency coordinators. The frequency coordinators would review the applications and, in case of conflict, certify the earlier filed application that complies with the Commission's rules for submission to the Commission. 18. Using frequency coordination to award licenses for new EBS stations raises a variety of issues. First, we seek comment on whether there are entities that could be qualified to serve as an EBS frequency coordinator and the process by which the Commission should select one or more frequency coordinators. Second, we seek comment on the processes that a frequency coordinator would use to handle requests for EBS frequencies and to determine whether an application complies with the Commission's rules. We also seek comment on the appropriate geographic area for new licenses. We also seek comment on the appropriate size of the frequency block for EBS licenses awarded through the frequency coordination process. Available alternatives include:
(1)Issuing a separate license for each channel group;
(2)licensing MBS channels separately and licensing LBS and UBS channels together;
(3)issuing one UBS license, one MBS license, and one LBS license in a given geographic area. Finally, we ask whether it is appropriate or necessary to place limitations on the number of applications that a licensee or its affiliates could file for new EBS stations in a given time period in order to ensure that a wide variety of EBS licensees can access spectrum. We seek comment on these and any other issues relating to the use of frequency coordination to assign new EBS licenses. 19. Our discussion of specific proposals and questions is not meant to preclude commenters from offering other proposals or raising other questions relating to the assignment of new EBS licenses. We seek comment on all questions and issues relating to the assignment of new EBS licenses. Procedural Matters Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 20. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the Commission's rules. Comment Period and Procedures 21. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using:
(1)The FCC's Electronic Comment Filing system (ECFS),
(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings* , 63 FR 24121 (1998). • *Electronic Filers:* Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/* or the *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • *For ECFS filers* , if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Comments shall be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to *http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html* . In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • *Paper filers:* Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. • *People with Disabilities:* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). • *Availability of Documents:* The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: *http://www.fcc.gov* . Copies of comments and reply comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 1-800-378-3160. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 22. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 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) requirements. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* . Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in the *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* for comments. The Commission will send a copy of this *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* , including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the **Federal Register** . A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 24. The *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* seeks comment on various alternatives to license unassigned and available EBS spectrum throughout the United States and the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, the *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* seeks comments on the following options:
(a)Using competitive bidding to license unassigned and available spectrum. If this option is adopted the Commission proposes to use the competitive bidding rules in part 1, subpart Q of the Commission's rules. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt bidding credits and small business size standard, the size of the spectrum blocks to be auctioned, and the size of geographic areas to be licensed.
(b)Issuing one license per State to a State agency designated by the Governor to act as a spectrum manager for the State. The State agency would be required to meet the eligibility restrictions in § 27.1201 of the Commission's rules. The State agency would be able use spectrum manager leasing arrangements or *de facto* transfer leasing arrangements.
(c)Using a leasing scheme similar to the one used to license private land mobile radio spectrum. Under this approach, applicants could submit applications for new EBS stations at any time to frequency coordinators. 25. We believe our proposals will encourage utilization of this band and the development of new innovative services to the public such as providing wireless broadband services, including high-speed Internet access and mobile services while encouraging educators to use the band for educational services. B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules 26. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 706. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 27. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms, “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. Below, we discuss the total estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our actions. 28. The Educational Broadband Service
(EBS)(previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)) is used to provide educational services to students. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers in this service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. This SBA small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses. 29. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions may be included in the definition of a small entity. EBS is a non-profit non-broadcast service. We do not collect, nor are we aware of other collections of, annual revenue data for EBS licensees. We find that up to 1,932 of these educational institutions are small entities that may take advantage of our amended rules to provide additional flexibility to EBS. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 30. There are no new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements proposed in the *BRS/EBS 2nd FNPRM* . E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 31. RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
(3)the use of performance, rather than design standards; and
(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.” 32. The Commission has not proposed an approach for licensing EBS spectrum. Instead, the Commission seeks comment on three distinct approaches for licensing EBS spectrum to determine which approach would best suit the needs of schools and universities and other non-profit educational institutions. F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule 33. None. Ordering Clauses 34. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the proposed regulatory changes described in this *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* , and that comment is sought on these proposals. 35. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* , including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10105 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 512 [Docket No. NHTSA-06-26140; Notice 3] RIN 2127-AJ95 Confidential Business Information AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of Petition for Reconsideration. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for reconsideration regarding amendments to NHTSA's regulation on Confidential Business Information. The petition, by the American Association for Justice, sought the rescission of class determinations that provide confidential treatment for certain categories of information submitted to NHTSA pursuant to the Early Warning Reporting regulations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Kido, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone
(202)366-5263, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Pursuant to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, NHTSA has adopted Early Warning Reporting
(EWR)regulations. 49 CFR Part 579. *See* 49 U.S.C. 30166(m), Public Law 106-414. Under these regulations, in general, larger manufacturers must submit certain data to the NHTSA on a quarterly basis. Their EWR reports include information on production, incidents involving deaths or injuries, property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, field reports and common green tires, with some variation based on the reporting sector. In general, smaller manufacturers must report on incidents involving deaths. On October 19, 2007, NHTSA published regulations addressing the confidentiality of EWR data. 72 FR 59434. The Appendices to the October 2007 notice contain class determinations providing that certain EWR information is confidential. Under Appendix C to 49 CFR Part 512, EWR data on production (except for light vehicles), consumer complaints, warranty claims, field reports and common green tires, as well as copies of field reports are confidential. 72 FR at 59470. Under Appendix D, the last six
(6)characters of the vehicle identification number
(VIN)in an EWR report on death(s) or injuries are confidential. *Id.* As explained in the preamble to the October 2007 rule, NHTSA based these class determinations on the substantive criteria in Exemptions 4 and 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(6). Under FOIA Exemption 4, the standard for assessing the confidentiality of information that parties are required to submit to the government is whether “disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects:
(1)To impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or
(2)to cause substantial competitive harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.” *National Parks & Conservation Ass'n* v. *Morton* , 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The class determinations in Appendix C to Part 512 are based on Exemption 4. FOIA Exemption 6 provides for the withholding of “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The agency applied Exemption 6 to the last six
(6)characters of the VINs affixed to those vehicles allegedly involved in a death or injury reported under 49 CFR part 579 to protect the identity of individual vehicle owners. The class determination in Appendix D to part 512 is based on Exemption 6. For a more detailed discussion of the agency's analysis regarding the class determinations in Appendices C and D, we refer readers to the preamble of the October 2007 rule. II. American Association for Justice Petition and NHTSA's Response In a December 3, 2007 letter, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, petitioned for reconsideration of the class determinations on EWR data. AAJ asks NHTSA to withdraw the class determinations, based on two arguments. First, AAJ asserts that Federal law requires NHTSA to apply a balancing test used by a court in evaluating a motion to unseal court records filed in a products liability action. *See Chicago Tribune Co.* v. *Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.* , 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). Under this test, AAJ argues, an agency must balance the manufacturer's interest in keeping the information confidential with the alternate contention that disclosure serves the public interest in health and safety. AAJ asserts that a blanket exemption under the FOIA would violate this federal balancing test and that the agency must continue to evaluate the disclosure of a manufacturer's EWR data on a case-by-case basis. Second, AAJ asserts that automobile companies would not suffer detrimental competitive consequences from the disclosure of their EWR submissions. It states that industry's arguments regarding the competitive impact of the disclosure of EWR data should be discounted because manufacturers already learn about their competitors' products through reverse-engineering. AAJ cites an article in WIRED magazine discussing the vehicle tear-down process followed by manufacturers in general, and General Motors Corporation in particular. *See* Carl Hoffman, *The Teardown Artists* , WIRED (Feb. 2006). AAJ contends that since manufacturers already conduct these types of activities, disclosing EWR data may not have an additional impact on competition and that it could significantly improve public safety. As to both of these arguments, we disagree with AAJ's views regarding the applicable legal principles. In *Chicago Tribune* , a balancing test was applied in the unsealing of documents produced in a products liability lawsuit. In our view, the body of law that governs the disclosure of EWR data is FOIA law, rather than the law on the unsealing of documents in *Chicago Tribune* . More particularly, as explained in the preamble to the October 2007 rule, the proper standard is that of Exemption 4 of the FOIA. *See* 72 FR at 59437. In Exemption 4, Congress has already struck the balance and no further balancing of the public interest is warranted. *See Public Citizen Health Research Group* v. *FDA* , 185 F.3d 898, 904 (D.C. Cir. 1999); 72 FR at 59437 *and* 59449-50. In any event, to the extent relevant, the agency weighed the public's interest in these data against its continued ability to obtain EWR data under its impairment prong analyses. *See, e.g.,* 72 FR at 59449-51 (consumer complaints), 59456-57 (warranty claims), *and* 59460-62 (field reports). AAJ does not dispute our impairment analyses. We also disagree with AAJ's related contentions that this information would protect consumers and that NHTSA did not dispute AAJ's claim that the disclosure of EWR information is vital to the public interest but that NHTSA gave greater weight to competitive consequences that would result from the release of the data, which were presented by the automotive industry. AAJ's conclusory contentions on the value of the information to the public were not supported in its submission. And, we had explained that the disclosure of the EWR data covered by the Appendices would provide limited, if any, safety benefits to the public, *see, e.g.,* 72 FR at 59450, 59457, *and* 59462, but would be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to manufacturers and significantly impair the agency's ability to carry out the EWR program effectively. *See, e.g.,* 72 FR at 59441-63. 1 In the course of our assessment, we applied the FOIA law and considered the administrative record in reaching the determinations in Appendices C and D. AAJ and others had the opportunity to submit detailed comments presenting their views and any facts in support of them. 1 We note that the EWR information on deaths and injuries are not covered under the class determinations in Appendix C. The AAJ petition and article from WIRED do not provide justification for revision of the October 2007 rule and its appendices on the grounds that automobile companies would not likely suffer detrimental competitive harm from the disclosure of EWR data. The article points out that teardowns and related activities can yield valuable information about a competitor's products, such as dimensions, parts weight, and how parts are assembled together. However, the AAJ petition and article do not indicate, much less demonstrate, that teardowns provide information comparable to EWR data. The preamble to the October 2007 rule discussed EWR data and explained, among other things, the competitive value of those data. AAJ does not address how an entity could use tear-down information to develop EWR information or comparable information. NHTSA addressed EWR consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports. *See* 72 FR at 59444-63. The compendium of EWR consumer complaint data provides valuable information on customer satisfaction and how well products were received, quality and field experience. *See* 72 FR at 59444-48. Tear-downs do not provide this information. *See e.g.* , 72 FR at 59445, 59447-48. EWR warranty data provide a compendium of information on the quality and in-use performance of significant systems or components. *See* 72 FR at 59451-55. These data serve as a valuable indicator of the field performance and experience of parts and systems in vehicles and tires. *See* 72 FR at 59454-55. Vehicle tear-downs do not provide this information. EWR field report data address malfunctions or performance problems. *See* 72 FR at 59457. They reflect the in-use experience of a manufacturer's product collected at its expense and with the intent of identifying problems associated with its products. 72 FR at 59459; *see also* 72 FR at 59457-60. These data provide in-use information on technologies employed by manufacturers and provide competitively valuable information on product performance and experience in the field, including at times reliability and durability of systems and components. 72 FR at 59459-60. Again, vehicle tear-downs do not provide this information. Furthermore, NHTSA addressed EWR production data and explained why they are confidential (other than for light vehicles). *See, e.g.,* 72 FR at 59441-44. AAJ's petition does not address production data at all. NHTSA also explained why EWR common green tire identifiers are confidential. 72 FR at 59462-63. AAJ does not address this information either. Also, AAJ does not address the issue of costs in collecting information on competitor products. In general, the ability of a competitor to engage in reverse engineering, which forms a basis for AAJ's contentions, does not alone resolve the confidentiality of information; cost is a significant factor. *See* 72 FR at 59448 (quoting *Worthington Compressors* v. *Costle* , 662 F.2d 45, 51-52 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). The article from Wired alluded to the considerable costs incurred by GM to conduct vehicle tear-downs. It noted that a full vehicle tear-down takes approximately six weeks and requires work by technicians and the use of sophisticated equipment. The article also noted that the process focuses on costs; cost estimators estimate the price of every part used in the examined vehicle. AAJ does not address any of these vehicle tear-down costs. If there was a means by which competitors could acquire the competitive information provided by EWR submissions, such as consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports, these costs would certainly be considerable. *See, e.g.,* 72 FR at 59448, 59454, *and* 59459. Lastly, AAJ does not address Appendix D or any of the FOIA Exemption 6 issues detailed in the preamble to the October 2007 rule related to the disclosure of the full VIN reported in an incident involving an alleged death or injury. *See* 72 FR at 59463-65. For example, it does not address the privacy concerns raised by the agency if complete VIN information were disclosed. It does not address the fact that the agency's final rule permits the disclosure of the first eleven
(11)of the seventeen
(17)characters that comprise each VIN or that the first eleven characters are sufficient to identify the make, model, and model year of a vehicle. And, it does not address relevant case law. *See Center for Auto Safety* v. *NHTSA* , 809 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C. 1993); *see also* 72 FR at 59465. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the agency is denying AAJ's petition for reconsideration. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 30166, 49 U.S.C. 30167; 49 U.S.C. 32307; 49 U.S.C. 32505; 49 U.S.C. 32708; 49 U.S.C. 32910; 49 U.S.C. 33116; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: April 30, 2008. James F. Ports, Jr., Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-10192 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 73 90 Thursday, May 8, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 5, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Farm Service Agency *Title:* Customer Data Worksheet Request for SCIMS Record Change. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* Critical Customer Data is required in order to identify USDA program participants and ensure that benefits are directed to the correct customer and respective Tax Identification Numbers. There is no public law regarding the use or collection of Critical Customer Data. The option to document and track Critical Customer Data changes is necessary to ensure the integrity of the database and to provide the Farm Service Agency (FSA), Natural Resources and Conservation Service and Rural Development a method of verifying the validity of the information, and provide a necessary basis for pursuing legal remedies when needed. *Need and Use of the Information:* Critical Customer Data is necessary to input customer information for identity purposes and to provide a point of contact for the respective customer and a valid Tax Identification Number to direct program benefits to. The AD-2047 will be used to document Critical Customer Data changes and also to provide a spot check documentation form. Failure to collect and timely maintain the data collected will result in erroneous/outdated point of contact information, which could result in program information and benefits being directed to incorrect recipients. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 51,750. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Other (when necessary). *Total Burden Hours:* 24,323. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10255 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation In-Handling Charges for Commodities Pledged as Collateral for Marketing Assistance Loan AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)will discontinue reimbursing producers or warehouse operators for in-handling charges. This begins with the 2008-crop for all commodities except cotton. Producers must pay or provide for all in-handling charges on warehouse-stored commodities before CCC will accept commodities as collateral for a warehouse-stored marketing assistance loan. Also, producers must pay or provide for the payment of in-handling charges for farm-stored commodities that are delivered to a warehouse in settlement of a farm-stored marketing assistance loan. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Linden, Assistant to the Director, Warehouse and Inventory Division, Farm Service Agency, USDA, STOP 0553, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0553; telephone:
(202)690-4321; e-mail: *helen.linden@wdc.usda.gov.* Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171) (2002 Farm Bill) authorizes the marketing assistance loan program for all commodities. In the past, CCC paid warehouse operators or reimbursed producers for in-handling charges on forfeited commodities that were pledged as collateral for warehouse-stored marketing assistance loans or delivered to CCC in satisfaction of a farm-stored marketing assistance loan. Starting with the 2008-crop year, CCC will no longer pay warehouse operators or reimburse producers for in-handling charges that are applicable to either warehouse-stored commodities that are pledged as collateral for marketing assistance loans or farm-stored commodities that are forfeited to CCC in satisfaction of a farm-stored marketing assistance loan. Beginning with 2008-crop marketing assistance loans, producers must pay or provide for the payment of in-handling charges on warehouse-stored commodities before CCC will accept the commodity as collateral for a warehouse-stored marketing assistance loan. Beginning with the 2008-crop of wheat, feed grains, soybeans, rice, pulses, minor oilseeds, peanuts, honey, wool, and mohair, producers must provide documentation that all in-handling charges have been paid or provided for before a warehouse-stored marketing assistance loan will be disbursed for the commodity. Acceptable documentation will include specific information recorded directly on the warehouse receipt pledged as collateral for a marketing assistance loan. If the information is not recorded directly on the warehouse receipt that is pledged as loan collateral, separate documentation that is signed by the warehouse operator that includes the following language will be accepted as evidence that in-handling charges have been paid or provided for if the document is presented in conjunction with a warehouse receipt that is pledged as collateral for a warehouse-stored marketing assistance loan: Arrangements for the payment of in-handling charges have been made by the depositor of the commodity covered by receipt number *(Insert Receipt Number).* No lien will be asserted by the warehouse operator against the Commodity Credit Corporation or any subsequent holder of the warehouse receipt for in-handling charges. Failure to present the required documentation that in-handling charges have been paid or provided for will result in the commodity represented by the warehouse receipt being determined ineligible as collateral for the marketing assistance loan until the documentation is submitted to the applicable Farm Service Agency county office. For commodities pledged as collateral for farm-stored marketing assistance loans that are forfeited to CCC in satisfaction of an outstanding loan, the producer or warehouse operator that is accepting delivery of the forfeited commodity must provide documentation that in-handling charges have been paid or provided for before the loan settlement will be recorded. If the evidence is not provided as part of the delivery documentation, CCC will reduce the producer's settlement value for the forfeited commodity to reflect the amount of unpaid in-handling charges, at the rate provided in the warehouse's public tariff rates. In the event that a deduction from settlement proceeds is made, CCC will forward the withheld amount to the storing warehouse operator on behalf of the producer and will report the amount paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Signed at Washington, DC, on May 1, 2008. Glen L. Keppy, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E8-10179 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service San Juan National Forest; Columbine Ranger District; Colorado; Hermosa Land Exchange Analysis AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The San Juan National Forest is studying a proposal for a land exchange whereby Tamarron Properties Associates would offer 330 acres of non-Federal lands to the U.S. Forest Service in exchange for 265 acres of National Forest System lands and an easement for a new road. Any exchange would require by law that the appraised value of the properties be equal. The non-Federal properties include two inholdings adjacent to the Hermosa Roadless area; Mitchell Lakes and Hermosa Creek. The third inholding is a mining claim located in the Weminuche Wilderness area along the Whitehead Gulch Trail southeast of Silverton. Mitchell Lakes parcel is specifically located in T. 37 N., R. 9 W, Section 23 ; Hermosa Park T. 39 N., R. 10 W., Section 24, La Plata County, The Iron Clad Mining Claim is located in Section 11, T. 40 N., R. 7 W., N.M.P.M., Columbine Ranger District, San Juan National Forest, Colorado. DATES: Formal scoping on the proposed land exchange began on June 11, 2007 and ended on September 10, 2007. Two public open houses were held June 21 and 25, 2007. Public field trips to the parcels were held June 28 and 29, 2007. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in September 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in December 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Cindy Hockelberg, Columbine Public Lands, POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO 81122; e-mail *chockelberg@fs.fed.us.,* telephone 970-884-1418. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of and need for action is for
(1)more consolidated Federal and private ownership that reduces cost of Federal management and increases management efficiency; and
(2)acquisition of significant non-Federal inholdings within the San Juan National Forest in visible and frequented locations so they are not available for development; and
(3)additional Federal jurisdiction within Congressionally designated wilderness or other parcels such as wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas that provide habitat for threatened or endangered species. The Forest Service is directed to achieve the optimum landownership pattern to provide for the protection and management of resource uses to meet the needs of the nation now and in the future. Further, the Forest Service is to complete land-for-land exchanges to consolidate National Forest System and private, State, or local government land patterns, to permit needed urban or industrial expansion; or to make other adjustments in landownership in the public interest. Proposed Action The proposed action is to complete a land exchange whereby the Forest Service would acquire three non-Federal parcels located within the boundaries of the San Juan National Forest and convey a Federal parcel and road easement for a new road to private ownership. Possible Alternatives The following alternatives have been preliminarily identified: *Alternative 1:* This alternative is the No Action Alternative. The proposed project as described above would not occur. *Alternative 2:* This alternative is the proposed action and the project would occur as described above. This alternative was presented in the public scoping that occurred during the summer of 2007. *Alternative 3:* This alternative is responsive to trail use and moves the northern boundary of the Federal parcel south of the proponent's proposed location. The northern boundary for Alternative 3 would keep the trails immediately south and adjacent to the Chris Park wetland in Federal ownership. This alternative would include a road easement and limit use. Restrictions on road use for this alternative, in addition to 4 and 5 may affect the appraised value. *Alternative 4:* This alternative would be the same as Alternative 3 but would not include the road easement. Like Alternative 3, this alternative is responsive to the concerns expressed by trail users and will help address visual concerns. *Alternative 5:* This alternative would not include a substantial portion of the federal parcel, as described in the proposed alternative. The alternative is designed to preserve major portions of the wagon road and some wetlands. This alternative would not include the road easement and more directly addresses cultural and recreation concerns. A trade-off of this alternative is that acquisition of both large non-Federal parcels may not be possible due to the requirement that the exchange be equal value. Responsible Official Mark W. Stiles, Center Manager, San Juan Public Lands, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, CO 81301. Nature of Decision To Be Made Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: Will the proposed land exchange occur as proposed, as modified under the various alternatives, or not at all. If the exchange proceeds what mitigation measures will the Forest Service apply to the project? Scoping Process Formal scoping has already occurred on this project as described above; comments received indicate that there may be significant impacts for which an EIS is the appropriate level of analysis. Informal scoping responses may be submitted to Cindy Hockelberg (contact information above), if there is an issue that has not been identified. Preliminary Issues During review of all public comments and internal input, the Forest Service has identified the following concerns or issues with the proposal: Recreation, particularly with regard to Chris Park campground and the trails that have been created in the area; The Animas Wagon road and its historical status; Socio-economic issues related to tourism and special use permittees who use the area; Visual impacts to those areas that are sensitive, including Highway 550 and Chris Park Campground; Wildlife impacts that may occur to a potential wildlife corridor on the Federal parcel; Wetlands and hydrology, particularly with regard to quality of wetlands on all parcels; and how the non-Federal parcels will be managed if they are acquired. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . This is expected to occur around September 2008. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC,* 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. Dated: May 1, 2008. Mark W. Stiles, Center Manager. [FR Doc. E8-10223 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). *Title:* NOAA Satellite Ground Station Customer Questionnaire. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0227. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 17. *Number of Respondents:* 102. *Average Hours per Response:* 15 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* NOAA requests people who operate ground receiving stations that receive data from NOAA satellites to complete a questionnaire about the types of data received, its use, the equipment involved, and similar subjects. The data obtained are used by NOAA for short-term operations and long-term planning. The collection of this data assists NOAA in complying with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)with the World Meteorological Organization Administration
(NOAA)and other international agreements. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households; State, Local or Tribal Government. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,
(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,
(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number
(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* . Dated: May 5, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10226 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Proposal for Available Alternative Site-Designation and Management Framework Summary: The Foreign-Trade Zones
(FTZ)Board is inviting public comment on a staff proposal to make available an alternative framework for participating grantees to designate and manage their general-purpose FTZ sites. A key result of this proposal, which stems from a series of regional and state-level discussions with FTZ grantees that began in April 2007, would be greater flexibility and predictability for a participating grantee to use administrative “minor boundary modifications”
(MBMs)to modify FTZ sites. The greater flexibility would be made possible by participating grantees' increased focus on the FTZ sites needed for current or near-term zone activity, with a resulting improvement in the efficiency of FTZ oversight by government agencies. The availability of this alternative framework would affect only participating FTZ grantees and would occur within the existing statutory and regulatory context (including the role of the local CBP port director relative to any application for Board action or MBM request). Background: Under the FTZ Act of 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the FTZ Board may authorize FTZ sites sponsored by local “grantee” organizations at locations within or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)ports of entry. Under the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400), FTZ designation for a particular parcel or site may result either from an application for action by the FTZ Board or from a request for an administrative MBM action by the FTZ Board staff. The regulatory time frame for such FTZ Board actions is ten months versus a thirty-day time frame for administrative MBM actions, and there are significantly greater documentation requirements associated with applications for Board action than for requests for administrative action. The FTZ Act gives the FTZ Board broad authority and discretion. In this context, the Board's 1991 regulations delineate criteria for evaluation of applications for Board action and requests for administrative action to authorize FTZ designation for new parcels or sites. The applicable regulatory criteria are general in nature and the Board's existing approach (practice) for MBMs and FTZ designation for new parcels or sites pre-dates both the enormous growth in international trade of recent decades and the significant evolution in trade-related security and oversight responsibilities within government since 2001. Within the FTZ program itself, increased demand for rapid action regarding new FTZ parcels or sites is tied to an accelerated pace of decision-making among the types of businesses that constitute the ultimate users of the program. The program's ability to react to business needs in a timely manner is inextricably linked to the program's success in helping to retain or enhance U.S.-based activity. In this context, an alternative approach to MBMs and site management for grantees in need of greater flexibility and responsiveness can be important in fulfilling the FTZ program's purpose “to expedite and encourage foreign commerce.” Proposal: The fundamental trade-off addressed in this proposal is greater flexibility and increased predictability for approval of FTZ sites through simple and rapid MBM actions in exchange for a grantee maximizing the linkage between designation of FTZ space and actual use of that space for FTZ activity (after “activation” by CBP). Maximizing this linkage can further other important program-related goals, including more efficient use of both FTZ Board and CBP resources. Although the proposed alternative framework could be available to new or existing grantees, the major benefit would likely be for existing grantees who seek to enhance their ability to respond to evolving FTZ-related needs in their communities. Under this proposal, existing or potential grantees would have the option of applying to establish or reorganize their FTZ by incorporating in an application for FTZ Board action elements from the following framework: 1. The “service area” within which the grantee intends to be able to propose FTZ sites (e.g., specific counties, with documented support from new counties if the service area reflected a broader focus than the FTZ's current area served). The term “service area” applies a name to a concept which already exists in certain approved FTZ applications in which a grantee organization has named the localities it intends to serve. It should be noted that any service area would need to be consistent with the “adjacency” requirement of the FTZ Board's regulations (60 miles/90 minutes driving time from CBP Port of Entry boundaries). 2. An initial limit of up to 2,000 acres of designated FTZ space within the service area. Given the proposal's focus on linking FTZ designation more closely to FTZ activity, the 2,000-acre limit reflects the FTZ Board's existing practice of limiting any FTZ grantee to activation of 2,000 acres (regardless of the overall size of the grantee's zone) unless further approval is obtained from the FTZ Board. Acreage within the 2,000-acre limit which had not been applied to specific designated sites would effectively be “reserve” acreage available for future FTZ designation for parcels or sites within the grantee's approved service area. 3. Enhancement of the usefulness of the 2,000 available acres by emphasizing “floating” acreage within an individual site's boundaries (as has been the FTZ Board's practice with certain applications to date). For example, 100 acres of “floating” FTZ designation within the boundaries of a 700-acre port complex would mean that it would be possible to activate with CBP up to 100 acres of total space anywhere within that 700-acre complex. 4. Mandatory designation of a primary “anchor” FTZ site able to attract multiple FTZ users. No “sunset” time limit (see below) would apply to the anchor site. The anchor site would generally be no more than 500 acres (which could be “floating” acres within larger site boundaries see above). A grantee's anchor site would be designated through the full application process for FTZ Board action. 5. Possible designation of a limited number of “magnet” sites selected by the grantee often through local public processes for ability and readiness to attract multiple FTZ users. An individual magnet site would generally be limited to 200 “floating” acres. A magnet site could only be designated through an application for FTZ Board action. 6. Possible designation of “user-driven” sites to serve companies not located in an anchor or magnet site but which are ready to pursue conducting activity under FTZ procedures. In the general interest of maximizing the linkage between FTZ site designation and FTZ activity at the site, a user-driven site would be limited in the context of a larger industrial park or business district where other companies interested in FTZ procedures might be able to locate in the future to the area(s) required for the company(ies) ready to pursue conducting activity under FTZ procedures. 7. Unlike anchor and magnet sites, user-driven sites could be designated through the current minor boundary modification
(MBM)mechanism a rapid administrative action by the Board's staff in addition to through FTZ Board action. A simplification of the MBM process would result from elimination of the need to “swap” like amounts of acreage from existing sites as long as the total acreage for existing and proposed sites remained within the standard 2,000-acre limit. 8. In addition to the one anchor site, general initial limits of five magnet sites and ten user-driven sites which could exist simultaneously for a single FTZ. Increases of the limits applicable to a specific grantee could be justified over a longer term based on FTZ activity at a significant percentage of the grantee's designated sites. A grantee's request for a permanent increase in its number of authorized sites would be a matter for consideration by the FTZ Board. Also, the special circumstances of regional (multi-county) FTZs could be taken into account by an alternative general initial limit for such zones of two magnet sites per county. (Other limits in the proposal would be unaffected by such an alternative initial limit on numbers of magnet sites for regional FTZs.) 9. Consistent with current practice for many expansion applications, magnet sites and user-driven sites would be subject to “sunset” time limits which would self-remove FTZ designation from a site if there had been no FTZ activity before the site's sunset date (generally five years from the date of the site's approval). Magnet sites and user-driven sites would also be subject to ongoing “recycling” whereby FTZ activity at a site during the site's initial sunset period would serve to push back the sunset date by another five years (when the sunset test based on FTZ activity would again apply). It is important to note that the elements of the proposal support each other in furthering the goals of flexibility and focus for FTZ site designation (with important resulting resource- and efficiency-related benefits for the government). As such, a framework incorporating these types of elements would incorporate the package of elements as an available alternative to the Board's current practice. FTZ grantees opting to manage their zones under the Board's current framework would be unaffected by this proposal. As is currently the case, MBM actions would be approved by the Board's staff while modifications to a zone's “plan” ( *e.g.* , increase in authorized FTZ acreage, modification to service area) would be matters for the FTZ Board's consideration. In addition, in order to help the FTZ Board evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of the alternative framework after actual experience with FTZ grantees, the FTZ staff would report to the Board on a periodic basis regarding the actual usage of the alternative framework. The staff's reporting regarding implementation of the framework at individual participating FTZs would result from staff-initiated reviews and would not require any request or application from the grantee. Public comment on this proposal is invited from interested parties. We ask that parties fax a copy of their comments, addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary, to
(202)482-0002. We also ask that parties submit the original of their comments to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. The closing period for the receipt of public comments is July 7, 2008. Any questions about this request for comments may be directed to the FTZ Board staff at
(202)482-2862. Dated: May 2, 2008. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-10274 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-807] Polyethylene Terepthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4475 and
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUMMARY: On April 3, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the final results of the antidumping duty changed circumstances review and reinstatement of the antidumping order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from Korea. The review covered a single firm, Kolon Industries, Inc. (Kolon) and the period July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Reinstatement of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 73 FR 18259 (April 3, 2008) ( *Final Results* ). We are amending the *Final Results* to correct a ministerial error in the calculation of the cash deposit rate for Kolon pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 7, 2008, the Department received from Kolon a timely allegation of a ministerial error pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(1). Kolon alleges an error in formatting product-specific control numbers. Kolon asserts the Department assigned a revised field of only 6 characters in length for the variable CONNUM2H in the home market comparison program while assigning a field length of 10 characters for the variable CONNUM2H in the margin program. Kolon argues that the effect of this error is to truncate some of the CONNUM2H values used for matching purposes in the final results. Petitioners did not comment on the alleged ministerial error. Amended Final Results of Review A ministerial error as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the act) “includes errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” See also 19 CFR 351.224(f). After analyzing Kolon’s allegation, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that the Department made a ministerial error in the final results by inadvertently setting the field length for CONNUM2H in the comparison market program to 6 characters rather than 10 characters. Therefore, we are amending the final results of this antidumping duty changed circumstances review of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from Korea. In these amended final results we have assigned a character length of 10 for the CONNUM2H variable used in the comparison market program. As a result of this correction, the weighted-average percentage margin for Kolon has changed from 1.53 percent to 1.52 percent. We will issue amended cash deposit instructions for these amended final results of this administrative review to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 15 days after publication of these amended final results. There are no changes to the rates applicable to any other companies under this antidumping order. *See Final Results* . This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e). Dated: May 01, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10277 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-824, A-583-837] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India and Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of> Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India and Taiwan would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation for these antidumping duty orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2008. CONTACT INFORMATION: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5255 or
(202)482-5050, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PET film from India and Taiwan, pursuant to Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 30544 (June 1, 2007) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and therefore notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 72 FR 57297 (October 9, 2007). On April 10, 2008, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on PET film from India and Taiwan would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Film, Sheet, and Strip from India and Taiwan* (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-415 and 731-TA-933-934, USITC Publication 3994 (Review) (April 2008)). Scope of the Orders The products covered by these orders are all gauges of raw, pretreated or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item number 3920.62.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for the convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Since these orders were published, there was one scope determination for PET film from India, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by International Packaging Films Inc., the Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order on PET film from India. *See Notice of Scope Rulings* , 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Continuation of the Orders As a result of these determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on PET film from India and Taiwan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10266 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-825] Continuation of Countervailing Duty Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)that revocation of the countervailing duty order on Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Film, Sheet, and Strip from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation for this countervailing duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2008. CONTACT INFORMATION: Elfi Blum or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0197 or
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department initiated and the ITC instituted a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on PET Film, Sheet, and Strip from India, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 72 FR 30544 (June 1,2007) ( *Initiation* ). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies, and therefore notified the ITC of the magnitude of the rates likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 72 FR 57300 (October 9, 2007) ( *Final Sunset Review PET Film from India* ). On April 10, 2008, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the countervailing duty order on PET Film, Sheet, and Strip from India would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate
(PET)Film, Sheet, and Strip from India and Taiwan* (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-415 and 731-TA-933-934, USITC Publication 3994 (Review)(April 2008)). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are all gauges of raw, pretreated or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item number 3920.62.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for the convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Since this order was published, there has been one scope determination for PET film from India, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by International Packaging Films Inc., the Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order on PET film from India. *See Notice of Scope Rulings* , 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Continuation of Order As a result of these determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the countervailing duty order on PET Film from India. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rate in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order is the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10273 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-813] Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit
(CPF)from Thailand. This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, C & A Products Co., Ltd. (C&A). The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. Subsequent to the preliminary results, we conducted verification and provided parties with an opportunity to comment. As discussed below in the section on “Verification,” no changes to the preliminary dumping margin were warranted by the results of verification. Furthermore, no parties submitted any comments. Therefore, the final results do not differ from those presented in the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for C&A is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2371. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 27, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand. *See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 73318 (December 27, 2007). Since the publication of the preliminary results, we conducted verification of C&A's sales information in Bangkok, Thailand and issued our verification report. *See* Memorandum to File through Dana Mermelstein, Program Manager from Myrna Lobo, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Verification of the Sales Response of C & A Products Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand (Verification Report), dated February 21, 2008, the public version of which is on file in the Central Records Unit
(CRU)located in room 1117 of the Main Commece Building. On February 25, 2008 we issued a briefing schedule giving interested parties the opportunity to submit comments. On March 10, 2008, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of the instant new shipper review to May 19, 2008. *See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 73 FR 12704 (March 10, 2008). No comments were submitted by any of the parties. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is CPF, defined as pineapple processed and/or prepared into various product forms, including rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and crushed pineapple, that is packed and cooked in metal cans with either pineapple juice or sugar syrup added. CPF is currently classifiable under subheadings 2008.20.0010 and 2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). HTSUS 2008.20.0010 covers CPF packed in a sugar-based syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF packed without added sugar ( *i.e.* , juice-packed). Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive. There have been no scope rulings for the subject order. Period of Review This review covers the period July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. Bona Fides Analysis of U.S. Sales In the preliminary results, we found that C&A's reported U.S. sales during the POR were bona fide sales, as required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality of the facts on the record. *See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Office Director, from Myrna Lobo, International Trade Compliance Analyst regarding Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Bona Fides Analysis of Sales Reported by C & A Products Co., Ltd.* , dated December 19, 2007, for further discussion of our price and quantity analysis. No comments were submitted on our preliminary finding and we found no information at verification which would alter our finding. Therefore, for these final results, the Department continues to find that C&A's U.S. sales during the POR were bona fide commercial transactions. Verification As provided in 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv), the Department conducted verification of C&A's questionnaire responses at the company's offices in Bangkok, Thailand from February 4, 2008 to February 7, 2008. Our verification results are detailed in *Verification Report* . We accepted one minor correction at verification to the inventory turnover days reported by C&A. The corrected inventory turnover days was verified. *See Verification Report* at page 2. The correction to inventory turnover days results in a revision to inventory carrying costs. However, in this case, these costs are not used in our margin calculation, and this change has no impact on the final margin calculations. Therefore, the final results are the same as the preliminary results. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage exists for the period July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin C & A Products Co., Ltd. 0.00% Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis (i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis (i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department revoked this order effective October 31, 2007. *See Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order* , 73 FR 21311 (April 21, 2008). The Department notified U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to discontinue suspension of liquidation on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after October 31, 2007, the effective date of revocation of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties are no longer required. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This new shipper review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i). Dated: May 2, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10278 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Certification Requirements for Distributors of NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts/NOAA Hydrographic Products AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Julia Powell,
(301)713-0388 ext. 169, or *Julia.Powell@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Coast Survey manages the Certification Requirements for Distributors of NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts (NOAA ENCs®). The certification allows entities to download, redistribute, repackage, or in some cases reformat, official NOAA ENCs and retain the NOAA ENC's official status. The regulations for implementing the Certification are at 15 CFR part 995. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 15 CFR part 995 form the basis for this collection of information. This information allows the Office of Coast Survey to administer the regulation, and to better understand the marketplace resulting in products that meet the needs of the customer in a timely and efficient manner. II. Method of Collection Electronic reports are required from participants, and methods of submittal include Internet and e-mail. III. Data *OMB Number:* 00648-0508. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; and business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 8. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 hour to provide a distribution report twice a year; and 18 hours for reporting of errors in the ENC. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 320. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: May 5, 2008. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E8-10225 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-AW75 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Scoping Process AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)and notice of initiation of scoping process; request for comments. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) announces its intent to prepare an amendment (Amendment 4) to the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP)for Atlantic Herring and to prepare an EIS to analyze the impacts of any proposed management measures. The goals of the amendment are to improve monitoring of catch in the Atlantic herring (herring) fishery and to manage the fishery at long-term sustainable levels, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The Council is initiating a public process to determine the scope of alternatives to be addressed in the amendment and EIS. NMFS is alerting the interested public of the commencement of the scoping process and providing for public participation in compliance with environmental documentation requirements. DATES: Written and electronic scoping comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, June 30, 2008. ADDRESSES: Written comments on Amendment 4 may be sent by any of the following methods: • E-mail to the following address: *HerringAmendment4@noaa.gov* ; • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Scoping Comments on Herring Amendment 4;” or • Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul, 978-281-9135. Requests for copies of the scoping document and other information should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone 978-465-0492. The scoping document is accessible electronically via the Internet at *http://www.nefmc.org* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 978-465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The U.S. herring fishery is managed as one stock complex along the East Coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC, although evidence suggests that separate spawning components exist within the stock complex. The Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) adopted management measures for the herring fishery in state and Federal waters in 1999, and NMFS approved most of the management measures in the Herring FMP on October 27, 1999. The Herring FMP became effective on January 10, 2001. The state and Federal management plans contain similar management measures. The state and Federal management plans for herring establish total allowable catches
(TACs)levels in each of four management areas. Under ASFMC's management plan, there are spawning area restrictions and requirements for vessels to take specified days out of the fishery for state waters. Both plans include limits on the size of vessels that can take, catch, or harvest herring. Each plan includes administrative elements, such as requirements for vessel, dealer, and processor permits and reporting requirements. Amendment 1 to the Herring FMP was developed by the Council and became effective on June 1, 2007. It established elements of a limited access program for the herring fishery and a seasonal purse seine and fixed gear-only area in the inshore Gulf of Maine. Several additional management measures were also included which primarily addressed issues related to the herring fishery specifications, management area boundaries, fixed gear fisheries for herring, and the regulatory definition of midwater trawl gear. Amendment 2 to the Herring FMP was part of an omnibus amendment developed by NMFS to ensure that all FMPs of the Northeast Region comply with the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology
(SBRM)requirements of the MSA. The purpose of the SBRM amendment was to:
(1)Explain the methods and processes by which bycatch is currently monitored and assessed for Northeast Region fisheries;
(2)determine whether these methods and processes need to be modified and/or supplemented;
(3)establish standards of precision for bycatch estimation for all Northeast Region fisheries; and
(4)document the SBRMs established for all fisheries managed through the FMPs of the Northeast Region. Amendment 3 to the Herring FMP is currently under development by the Council and represents an omnibus amendment to all Council FMPs to address Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH)consistent with the MSA. The amendment proposes to redefine, refine, or update the identification and description of all EFH for those species of finfish and mollusks managed by the Council, and identify and implement mechanisms to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on the EFH. For Federal waters, the Council developed, and NMFS, approved 3-year specifications (2007-2009) that specify an Allowable Biological Catch
(ABC)of 194,000 mt and established an optimum yield
(OY)of 145,000 mt for the herring fishery. Based on data and analysis presented in the most recent stock assessment and at the 2006 Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee
(TRAC)Meeting, the Area 1A TAC was reduced from 60,000 mt to 50,000 mt for 2007, and 45,000 mt for 2008 and 2009. The Area 3 TAC was set at 55,000 mt in 2007, and increased to 60,000 mt in 2008 and 2009. The Area 1B and Area 2 TACs were set at 10,000 mt and 30,000 mt, respectively, and remain constant during the 3-year specification period. Additional management measures are being considered in Amendment 4 to the Herring FMP for several reasons. The original Herring FMP and Amendment 1 represent important milestones in the Council's efforts to maintain a sustainably managed herring fishery throughout the Northeast. Recently, concerns about the fishery have led the Council to determine that additional action is needed to further address issues related to the health of the herring resource throughout its range, how the resource is harvested, how catch/bycatch are accounted for, and the important role of herring as a forage fish in the Northeast region. These concerns are reflected in the unprecedented level of interest in managing this fishery by New England's commercial and recreational fishermen, eco-tourism and shoreside businesses, and the general public. Finally, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006
(MSRA)requires that NMFS and the Councils establish Annual Catch Limits
(ACLs)and Accountability Measures
(AMs)by the year 2011 for every federally managed fishery that is not subject to overfishing. The MSRA also includes new provisions for the formation of Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs). Amendment 4 is therefore necessary to update the Herring FMP in a manner that is consistent with the new requirements of the MSRA. Measures Under Consideration The Herring Committee and the Council, through public meetings and after taking public comment, have identified a set of goals and objectives for this management action. In general, the goal of the amendment is to improve catch monitoring and ensure compliance with the MSRA. The management measures developed in this amendment may address one or more of the following objectives: 1. To implement measures to improve the long-term monitoring of catch (landings and bycatch) in the herring fishery; 2. To implement ACLs and AMs consistent with the MSRA; 3. To implement other management measures as necessary to ensure compliance with the new provisions of the MSRA; 4. To develop a sector allocation process or other LAPP for the herring fishery; and 5. In the context of objectives 1-4 (above), to consider the health of the herring resource and the important role of herring as a forage fish and a predator fish throughout its range. The Council will develop conservation and management measures to address the issues identified above and meet the goals/objectives of the amendment. Any conservation and management measures developed in this amendment also must comply with all applicable laws. The Council is also considering measures in this amendment to address concerns about potential herring bycatch in the Atlantic mackerel fishery and is seeking scoping comments on this issue. The concerns relate to vessels that may be directing on mackerel without a limited access permit for herring, and consequently without the ability to retain the herring they may catch incidentally when targeting mackerel. The TAC in Areas 2 and 3 is not fully utilized at this time, so it may be appropriate to provide vessels in these areas an opportunity to retain the herring they may catch when fishing for mackerel. This may help to better achieve OY for the fishery, while minimizing bycatch. All persons affected by or otherwise interested in herring management are invited to participate in determining the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed in Amendment 4 by submitting written comments (see ADDRESSES ) or by attending one of the meetings where scoping comments will be taken. Scoping consists of identifying the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. Alternatives include the following: Not amending the FMP (taking no action); developing an amendment that addresses the goal and objectives discussed in this notice; or other reasonable courses of action. Impacts may be direct, individual, or cumulative. This scoping process will also identify and eliminate from detailed analysis issues that are not significant. When, after the scoping process is completed, the Council proceeds with the development of an amendment to the Herring FMP, the Council will prepare an EIS to analyze the impacts of a range of alternatives under consideration. The Council will hold public hearings to receive comments on the draft amendment and on the analysis of its impacts presented in the EIS. Scoping Hearing Schedule The Council will discuss and take scoping comments at the following public meetings: 1. *Thursday, May 22, 2008, 9 a.m.* ; Clarion Hotel Portland, 1230 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04102; telephone:
(207)774-5611. 2. *Monday, June 2, 2008, 5 p.m.* ; Holiday Inn By The Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone:
(207)775-2311. 3. *Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 6 p.m.* ; Sheraton Atlantic City Convention Center Hotel, 2 Miss America Way, Atlantic City, NJ 08401; telephone:
(609)344-3535. Special Accommodations The meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to this meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 1, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10275 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG95 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification and clarification of a proposal to conduct exempted fishing; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject exempted fishing permit
(EFP)application that would authorize the harvest of set-aside herring awarded to Gulf of Maine Research Institute
(GMRI)through the 2008/2009 Atlantic Herring (herring) Research Set-Aside
(RSA)Program should be issued for public comment. The Assistant Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made. DATES: Comments on this document must be received on or before May 23, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by e-mail to: *herring.efp@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on GMRI herring EFP.” Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on GMRI herring EFP.” Comments may also be sent via facsimile
(fax)to
(978)281-9135. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Silva, Cooperative Research Program Specialist, phone: 978-281-9326, fax: 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pending final approval by NOAA's Grants Management Division, the Science and Research Director for NMFS's Northeast Fisheries Science Center has preliminarily selected an Atlantic Herring RSA proposal submitted by GMRI to conduct a study entitled “Effects of Fishing on Herring Aggregations,” which would assess the effects of midwater trawling on herring aggregations. GMRI submitted a separate EFP request for research activities, which published in the **Federal Register** for public comment on March 10, 2008 (73 FR 12707). A final determination on the research EFP is pending. GMRI was awarded the following total allowable catch
(TAC)set-asides for both 2008 and 2009 to fund the proposed research and to compensate compensation fishing vessels: Management Area 1A/2,976,240 lb (1,350 mt); and Management Area 1B/661,380 lb (300 mt). The subject EFP would exempt vessels conducting compensation fishing from herring Management Area 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 quota closures, and herring trip possession limits, as specified at 50 CFR 648.201 and 648.204, respectively. All compensation trips would be completed prior to the end of the fishing year from which the compensation was awarded. GMRI proposes to combine some research and compensation fishing trips, although compensation trips would also occur separately from research activities. If a TAC set aside allocation limit is caught while on a compensation/research trip, research activities would be required to cease in order to prevent the project from exceeding a set-aside allocation. If the research project is terminated for any reason prior to completion, any unused funds collected from catch sold to pay for research expenses may be required to be refunded to NOAA. The quota closure and possession limit exemptions would apply only to the 2008 fishing year. A subsequent EFP application would need to be approved prior to any 2009 compensation fishing. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs. The applicant may place requests for minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and minimal so as not to change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: May 2, 2008. Emily H. Menashes Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E8-10176 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Time and Date: 2 p.m., Wednesday, May 21, 2008. Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. Status: Closed. Matters to be Considered: Rule Enforcement Review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 08-1237 Filed 5-6-08; 12:38 pm]
Connectionstraces to 75
Traces to 75 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Purposes§ 3501
- Rule making§ 553
- Definitions§ 601
- Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities§ 1701
- Recruit basic training: privacy§ 7420
- Economic and communication sanctions pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution§ 287c
- Congressional declaration of policy§ 3201
- Support for Cuban people§ 6004
- Rights-of-way for pipelines through Federal lands§ 185
- Regulations implementing requirements relating to licensing for components and other parts of facilities§ 2139a
- Repealed. Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title I, § 101(a), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2987§ 6212
- Limitations on export of oil or gas§ 1354
- Definitions§ 7201
- Application of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act§ 7210
- Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner; other officers§ 902
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- State implementation plans for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards§ 7410
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Oil and hazardous substance liability§ 1321
- Disaster mitigation requirements; notification to flood-prone areas§ 4105
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 4001
- Flood elevation determinations§ 4104
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Transferred§ 471
- Records maintained on individuals§ 552a
- Inspections, investigations, and records§ 30166
- General powers§ 322
- Disclosure of information by the Secretary of Transportation§ 30167
- Investigative powers§ 32307
- Information and compliance requirements§ 32505
- REPORT ON FEASIBILITY, BENEFITS, AND COSTS OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF CERTIFICATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS.§ 32708
- Administrative§ 32910
- Confidentiality of information§ 33116
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
CFR
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Issue of type certificate: import products.§ 21.29
- General.§ 91.403
- How do you request testimony?§ 403.120
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Northern California and Lake Tahoe Area Annual Fireworks Events.§ 165.1191
- Identification of plan.§ 52.1270
- Identification of plan.§ 52.2620
- Introduction.§ 52.02
- Applicability.§ 71.1
- Operating in icing conditions.§ 91.527
- Icing conditions: Operating limitations.§ 125.221
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Verification of information.§ 351.307
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- De minimis net countervailable subsidies and weighted-average dumping margins disregarded.§ 351.106
- Revocation of orders; termination of suspended investigations.§ 351.222
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
65 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 14 CFR 71
- 15 CFR 774
- 10 USC 7430(e)
- 20 CFR 403
- 20 CFR 413.120
- 33 CFR 100
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- 33 USC 1233
- 33 CFR 3.25
- 33 CFR 100.504
- 33 CFR 165
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 40 CFR 52
- 40 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 300
- 42 USC 9601-9675
- 44 CFR 65
- 44 CFR 60.3
- 44 CFR 65.4
- 44 CFR 10
- 44 CFR 67
- 44 CFR 60
- 47 CFR 27
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 107-198
- 47 CFR 1.2
- Pub. L. 96-354
- Pub. L. 96-39
- 14 CFR 91
- 14 CFR 125
- 14 CFR 135
- 61 Stat. 1180
- 33 CFR 110
+ 25 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
F. App'x498 F.2d 765
F. App'x263 F.3d 1304
F. App'x185 F.3d 898
Cites 140 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources