Unknown. Final rule

52,239 words·~237 min read·/register/2008/07/08/08-1418·

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2008-07-08.xml --- 73 131 Tuesday, July 8, 2008 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See Forest Service NOTICES Hearings: BioPreferred Voluntary Labeling Program, 38968-38969 E8-15411 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board NOTICES Meetings: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 38970 E8-15383 Army Army Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements;

Availability, etc.: Brigade Combat Team Transformation; Fort Irwin, CA, 38999 E8-15185 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Board of Scientific Counselors: Nominations of Candidates, 39017 E8-15429 Meetings: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Initial Review Group, 39016-39017 E8-15399 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Anchorage Regulations: Stonington Maine, Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay, ME, 38922-38923 E8-15311 Weymouth Fore River Weymouth, MA, 38924-38925 E8-15312 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones:

Central Massachusetts August Swim Events, 38951-38954 E8-15388 Commerce Commerce Department See Economic Development Administration See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commission of Fine Commission of Fine Arts NOTICES Meetings: Commission of Fine Arts, 38993 E8-15186 Defense Defense Department See Army Department See Navy Department NOTICES 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification, 38993-38998 E8-15277 Meetings:

Defense Business Board

(DBB)Meeting, 38998-38999 E8-15431 Economic Economic Development Administration NOTICES Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility to Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance, 38970-38971 E8-15419 Education Education Department NOTICES Final Priorities for RRTCs, 39000-39005 E8-15503 Meetings: Presidents Board of Advisors (Board), The White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities (WHI/TCU), 39005 E8-15394 National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research: Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program; Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, 39005-39010 E8-15506 Employee Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Proposed Exemptions: Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; Internal Revenue Code (1986), 39158-39180 E8-15320 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Applications; Negative Determination: Springs Global, US, Inc., Asheville, NC, 39044 E8-15341 Determinations: Welex, Inc., Blue Bell, PA, 39045-39046 E8-15338 Investigations: Certifications of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, etc., 39046-39047 E8-15337 Ferguson Aluminum; Termination, 39047 E8-15342 Revised Determination on Reconsideration: B. Walter and Co., Wabash, IN, 39047-39048 E8-15340 Termination of Investigation: Bedford Logistics, Inc., Bedford, IN, 39048 E8-15344 General Ribbon Corp., Chatsworth, CA, 39048 E8-15336 NOVTEX Division of TRIMTEX Co., Inc., Adams, MS, 39048 E8-15345 Plastech, Moraine, OH, 39048 E8-15346 Trans-Ocean Products, Inc., Salem, OR, 39048 E8-15343 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Direct Final Approval of Revised Municipal Waste Combustor State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Indiana, 38925-38928 E8-15349 PROPOSED RULES Direct Final Approval of Revised Municipal Waste Combustor State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Indiana, 38954-38955 E8-15347 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39013-39014 E8-15439 Proposed Administrative Settlement, 39014-39015 E8-15433 Proposed Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response: Compensation, and Liability Act for the Wabash Environmental Technologies Site, 39015 E8-15434 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A330 Airplanes and Model A340 200 and 300 Series Airplanes, 38895-38898 E8-14468 APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10 B Airplanes, 38889-38891 E8-14484 ATR Model ATR42 Airplanes and Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, 211, and 212 Airplanes, 38887-38889 E8-14477 Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes, 38905-38908 E8-14471 Boeing Model 737-300 and -400 Series Airplanes, 38885-38887 E8-14475 Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, 300, et. al, 38893-38895 E8-15371 Dassault Model Falcon 2000 Airplanes, 38891-38893 E8-14579 Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Astra SPX, 1125 Westwind Astra, and Gulfstream 100 Airplanes, 38898-38900 E8-14469 Lockheed Model 1329 Series Airplanes, 38900-38905 E8-14470 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), et al., 38883-38885 E8-14472 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B Airplanes, 38933-38935 E8-15456 EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes, 38935-38937 E8-15461 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S. A. (EMBRAER) Models EMB 110P1 and EMB-110P2 Airplanes, 38937-38940 E8-15510 NOTICES Interim Operating Authority Granted to Commercial Air Tour Operators: National Parks and Tribal Lands Within or Abutting National Parks, 39073-39074 E8-15441 FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39041-39042 E8-15381 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, 38928-38931 E8-15446 PROPOSED RULES Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access: Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, 38955-38956 E8-15445 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39015-39016 E8-15447 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, 39092-39156 E8-14948 NOTICES Applications: Ameren/UE, 39010-39011 E8-15218 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; Amendment, 39011-39012 E8-15428 Complaints: NRG Energy, Inc. v. Entergy Services, Inc., 39012 E8-15425 Filings: Southeastern Power Administration, 39012 E8-15424 Meetings: Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 39013 E8-15427 Supplemental Notice of Designation of Commission Staff: Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., et al., 39013 E8-15426 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Crow Wing and Mille Lacs Counties, MN, 39074 E8-15190 Rescinded Notices of Intent, 39074-39075 E8-15476 Exploratory Advanced Research Program, 39075-39077 E8-15477 Final Federal Agency Actions On Proposed Highway; Ohio, 39077-39078 E8-15385 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 39016 E8-15416 Fine Arts Fine Arts Commission See Commission of Fine Arts Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Removal of the Concho Water Snake (Nerodia paucimaculata) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, etc., 38956-38967 E8-15133 NOTICES Balmorhea State Park Management Plan Habitat Conservation Plan: Reeves County, TX, 39024-39025 E8-15466 Incidental Take Permit Application for Construction and Operation: Seven Meteorological Towers on Lanai, HI, 39025-39026 E8-15417 Safe Harbor Agreement for the Northern Spotted Owl for Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation, Humboldt County, CA, 39026-39027 E8-15365 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, 39017-39018 E8-15471 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Proposed Surface Management of Natural Gas Resource Development: Correction, 38969-38970 E8-15463 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See Health Resources and Services Administration See National Institutes of Health Health Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39018-39020 E8-15470 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, 39022-39023 E8-15448 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Implementation of the Understandings Reached at the April 2008 Australia Group Plenary Meeting: Additions to the List of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, 38908-38910 E8-15386 NOTICES Action Affecting Export Privileges: Reza Mohammed Tabib and Terri Tabib, 38971-38972 E8-15306 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office IRS Internal Revenue Service RULES Change to Office to which Notices of Nonjudicial Sale Requests for Return of Wrongfully Levied Property must be sent, 38915-38917 E8-15460 Elections Regarding Start-up Expenditures, Corporation Organizational Expenditures and Partnership Organizational Expenses, 38910-38915 E8-15459 PROPOSED RULES Elections Regarding Start-up Expenditures, Corporation Organizational Expenditures and Partnership Organizational Expenses, 38940-38941 E8-15457 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39089-39090 E8-15462 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Preliminary Results, etc.: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, 38972-38979 E8-15475 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China, 38979-38981 E8-15465 Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments: University of Colorado, et al., 38981 E8-15450 Countervailing Duty Determinations: Sodium Nitrite From the People's Republic of China, 38981-38984 E8-15479 Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the People's Republic of China, 38984-38986 E8-15488 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 38986-38987 E8-15458 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations: Ferrovanadium from China and South Africa, 39040-39041 E8-15407 Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates, 39041 E8-15405 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39041 E8-15369 Justice Justice Department See Federal Bureau of Investigation See Justice Programs Office See Parole Commission Justice Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39042-39043 E8-15404 Labor Labor Department See Employee Benefits Security Administration See Employment and Training Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Job Corps, 39043 E8-15332 Research on Forced Labor in the Production of Goods in Selected Countries, 39043-39044 E8-15398 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Alaska Native Claims Selection, 39027 E8-15412 Final Supplementary Rules on Public Land in Humboldt, Pershing and Washoe Counties, NV, 39027-39031 E8-15172 Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases: Wyoming, 39031 E8-15423 Realty Actions: Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification of Public Lands in Carbon County, WY, 39031-39032 E8-15366 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Outer Continental Shelf: Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012, 39032-39035 E8-15444 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Guidance and Recommended Best Importer Practices to Enhance the Safety of Imported Motor Vehicles, etc., 39078-39088 E8-15494 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine, 39020-39021 E8-15192 Board of Scientific Counselors, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, 39021 E8-15188 Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Biotechnology Information, 39021-39022 E8-15191 National Cancer Institute, 39022 E8-15464 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, 39022 E8-15189 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Ocean Perch for Catcher Processors Participating in the Rockfish Limited Access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska, 38931 08-1418 Pacific Ocean Perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska, 38931-38932 08-1419 NOTICES Application for Exempted Fishing Permits: General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries, 38987-38988 E8-15375 Meetings: Federal Consistency Appeal by Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, 38988-38989 E8-15500 Hydrographic Services Review Panel, 38989-38990 E8-15509 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Beaufort Sea, Alaska, 38990-38991 E8-15473 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Navy Training Operations, Cherry Point Range Complex, 38991-38993 E8-15472 National Park National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Off-Road Vehicle Management: Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 38954 E8-15418 NOTICES Drafting of U.S. Nominations to the World Heritage List, 39036-39039 E8-15402 Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Work Group, 39039 E8-15397 National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 39039-39040 E8-15367 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions under the International Regulations Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972), 38921-38922 E8-15401 NOTICES Availability of Finding, 39000 E8-15400 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39052 E8-15410 Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Regarding Safeguards and Hazards, etc., 39052-39059 E8-15301 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Delta Lighting Corp., Stamford, CT, 39059-39061 E8-15409 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 39061-39062 08-1420 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39049-39051 E8-15392 E8-15393 Parole Parole Commission NOTICES Record of Vote of Meeting Closure, 39043 E8-15305 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Exemption of Certain Foreign Brokers or Dealers, 39182-39212 E8-15000 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39062-39063 E8-15356 E8-15357 E8-15361 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Depository Trust Co., 39064-39065 E8-15354 NYSE Arca, Inc., 39065-39066 E8-15355 The Depository Trust Co., 39067-39068 E8-15353 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Illinois, 39068-39069 E8-15451 E8-15455 Indiana, 39068 E8-15420 Iowa, 39069 E8-15499 Minnesota, 39069-39070 E8-15452 Missouri, 39070 E8-15453 Nebraska, 39070 E8-15403 E8-15406 West Virginia, 39072 E8-15421 Wisconsin, 39071 E8-15408 E8-15478 Grant Waivers: Nonmanufacturer Rule for Televisions, 39071-39072 E8-15384 Hearing: Region VII Regulatory Fairness Board, 39072 E8-15391 Surface Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Pennsylvania Regulatory Program, 38918-38920 E8-15432 PROPOSED RULES West Virginia Regulatory Program, 38941-38951 E8-15438 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Boards Membership, 39072-39073 E8-15415 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession, 39088-39089 E8-15387 MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 39023-39024 E8-15395 E8-15396 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 39092-39156 E8-14948 Part III Labor Department, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 39158-39180 E8-15320 Part IV Securities and Exchange Commission, 39182-39212 E8-15000 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. 73 131 Tuesday, July 8, 2008 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29335; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-045-AD; Amendment 39-15592; AD 2008-13-29] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the overwing frames from stations 845 to 905 (MD-87 stations 731 to 791), left and right sides, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of cracked overwing frames. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could sever the frame, increase the loading of adjacent frames, and result in damage to adjacent structure and loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5233; fax

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

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

(AD)that would apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55111). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the overwing frames from stations 845 to 905 (MD-87 stations 731 to 791), left and right sides, and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Extend Compliance Time Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member American Airlines, states that a 24-month compliance period for the initial inspections would be overly burdensome. The commenters request that we extend the compliance time to 48 months so operators can integrate the required actions with planned heavy maintenance visits. The commenters add that we did not consider the size of the fleet and the availability of parts when we determined the compliance period. American Airlines finds that a longer compliance time can be justified by applying statistically based risk analysis methods and accounting for the effect of flight cycles. We do not agree to extend the compliance time. We have no data or analysis to support such an extension of the compliance period. For airplanes that have accumulated more than 20,000 total flight cycles, the extent of damage already accumulated on the affected fuselage frames cannot be predetermined, so accounting for subsequent flight cycles will provide no benefit. The 24-month compliance period is considered appropriate in light of the characteristics of crack growth, the probability of crack initiation, and the ability of operators to integrate the required actions into established maintenance practices. Currently there are insufficient statistical or other data to justify a compliance period beyond the proposed 24 months. However, paragraph

(h)of this final rule provides operators the opportunity to request an extension of the compliance time if data are presented to justify such an extension. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Delay Issuance of AD Pending Parts Availability ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines, notes that the rate of cracking noted in early inspections suggests that the supply of available spare parts is insufficient to support completion of the proposed actions within the 24-month compliance period. Delta Air Lines also expresses concern over the availability of spare frames and reports that all its repairs done to date have been done by frame replacement with a like part. We infer that the commenters request that we wait to issue the final rule until sufficient parts are available. We disagree with the need to delay the final rule. Boeing has arranged to have additional frames manufactured as demand builds during the 24-month compliance period. Boeing expects a sufficient supply to be available to support the AD requirements. We are proceeding with issuance of the final rule as proposed. Request To Revise Cost Estimate ATA, on behalf of its member Delta Air Lines, notes that the estimated work hours to do the required actions assume that access to the overwing frames is available during a scheduled maintenance visit. The commenters assert that the 4-hour labor estimate applies only when the inspection can be done during a scheduled heavy maintenance visit, when the airplane is already opened up. Delta states that, in reality, up to 67 percent of its fleet will not be due for the heavy maintenance visit during the proposed compliance time. That portion of the fleet will require special-schedule inspection visits, and add at least 16 work hours to gain access to the inspection areas. We infer that the commenters are requesting that we revise the cost estimate provided in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost information provided in AD actions describes only the direct costs of the specific requirements. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours to do the required actions for this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs, such as the time necessary for access and close, in addition to the direct costs. These incidental costs can vary significantly among operators. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Interim Action We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,189 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost 4 $80 None $320, per inspection cycle 670 $214,400, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-29 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-15592. Docket No. FAA-2007-29335; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-045-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of cracked overwing frames. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could sever the frame, increase the loading of adjacent frames, and result in damage to adjacent structure and loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance

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

(f)Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do general visual and high frequency eddy current inspections, and all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A301, Revision 1, dated May 25, 2007. Do the applicable corrective actions before further flight after accomplishing the inspections. Repeat the inspections thereafter at applicable intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Actions According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(g)Inspections and related investigative and corrective actions are also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(f)of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A301, dated January 9, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

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

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A301, Revision 1, dated May 25, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

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

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-300 and -400 series airplanes. This AD requires testing and inspecting a certain web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck to determine the material type and thickness; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from several reports indicating that cracks ranging from 0.8 to 8.0 inches long were found on a certain web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck, which could result in venting and consequent decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6447; fax

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

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

(AD)that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-300 and -400 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 10, 2008 (73 FR 1846). That NPRM proposed to require testing and inspecting a certain web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck to determine the material type and thickness; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Change the Description of the Unsafe Condition Boeing asks that the unsafe condition (end level effect) specified in the applicable sections of the NPRM be changed from “rapid decompression” to “controlled decompression.” Boeing states that the most probable result of the cracking would be pressure loss or controlled depressurization. Boeing has received reports of cracks ranging from 4.5 to 8 inches in the web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck; the reports included the following data: • Cabin crews reported a loud hissing noise coming from the area below seats 14A, B, and C. No depressurization was reported. • The crew reported a loud hissing noise from the cabin lining on the left-hand side at row 15. The cabin windows along the left-hand side progressively frosted up until, after about 2 hours, all the windows were frosted up between rows 11 through 17. • It was reported that it was not possible to pressurize another airplane. We partially agree with Boeing. We agree to change the end level effect of the unsafe condition by removing the word “rapid,” since Boeing has provided data verifying that the decompression does not happen quickly. However, we do not agree that the decompression is “controlled” because of the safety implications and consequences associated with cracking on a web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck. We have changed the applicable sections in this AD accordingly. Request To Clarify Certain Compliance Times Boeing asks that we clarify the different compliance times for replacing discrepant web panels, depending on the thickness, as specified in Table 1 of Part 1.E., Compliance, of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1289, dated June 13, 2007. (The service bulletin was referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the specified actions.) Boeing states that, as written, paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the NPRM would allow 30 months or 6,000 flight cycles, whichever is later, to replace discrepant web panels. Boeing notes that this is acceptable for discrepant web panels with a material thickness that is found to be greater than or equal to 0.037 inch, and less than 0.047 inch; however, for web panels with a material thickness of less than 0.037 inch the specified compliance time is before further flight. Boeing adds that web panels with a material thickness of less than 0.037 inch do not meet the ultimate regulatory load requirements. Boeing also asks that the related investigative and corrective actions be clarified. We agree with Boeing that some clarification is necessary. Paragraph (g)(1) of the AD requires accomplishing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight (which includes replacing any discrepant web panels) by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. The Accomplishment Instructions do not clearly identify web panels with a material thickness of less than 0.037 inch; however, the web panels are clearly identified in paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin. Paragraph 1.E. specifies replacing web panels with a material thickness of less than 0.037 inch, as specified in paragraph 3.B.7. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Therefore, we have clarified paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to add that the corrective actions include replacing any web panel with a material thickness of less than 0.037 inch before further flight. We have also changed paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to clarify that the compliance time in that paragraph is separate from the compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1). The related investigative and corrective actions are defined in the service information section of the NPRM; therefore, no change is necessary in this regard. Request To Clarify That Additional Action Is Necessary Boeing also asks that we change paragraph

(e)of the NPRM to clarify that additional action is necessary for operators that inspected web panels using instructions that were contained in Boeing Communication messages that were sent out on January 17, 2006, prior to the release of the referenced service bulletin. Boeing states that the messages were sent to airlines that were operating airplanes that could have a discrepant web panel. Boeing adds that following release of those messages, as part of the information being developed for release in the referenced service bulletin, it was determined that additional details were necessary to accurately define the instructions to inspect for discrepant web panels. Boeing notes that the additional details, which affect both the chemical spot test and the ultrasonic thickness inspections, have been included in the service bulletin referenced in the NPRM as the source of service information for doing the specified actions; therefore, inspections accomplished without these additional steps could result in incorrect identification of discrepant web panels. Boeing also suggests that this language be added to paragraph

(e)of the AD. We acknowledge Boeing's concerns; however, paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of the referenced service bulletin specifies that the inspection instructions contained in the subject Boeing messages sent out on January 17, 2006, did not include certain steps. That section specifies that the chemical spot test and ultrasonic thickness inspections must be done again by following the procedures in the referenced service bulletin. In addition, paragraph

(e)of this AD states that if the actions required by this AD have been done previously, they do not need to be done again. Therefore, we have made no change to the 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 31 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry. The required tests and inspections take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for this U.S. operator is $240. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings 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: **2008-13-25 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15588. Docket No. FAA-2007-0395; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-157-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-300 and -400 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1289, dated June 13, 2007. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from several reports indicating that cracks ranging from 0.8 to 8.0 inches long were found on a certain web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck, which could result in venting and consequent 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. Testing/Inspecting/Investigative and Corrective Actions

(f)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a test of the web panel of the main wheel well pressure deck to determine the material type, and do an ultrasonic inspection to determine material thickness, by doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1289, dated June 13, 2007.

(g)For airplanes on which the web thickness or material is found to be discrepant during the test and inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, accomplish the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the time specified, in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1289, dated June 13, 2007.

(1)Except as provided by paragraph

(h)of this AD: Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions (including detailed and general visual inspections) before further flight, by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles until the actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD have been done. For any web panel with a material thickness of less than 0.037 inch, replace the web panel before further flight, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.7. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Doing this replacement ends the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.

(2)Except as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 30 months or 6,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, whichever is later, replace the web panel in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Doing this replacement ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Corrective Actions

(h)If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1289, dated June 13, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair according to a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

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

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

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

(j)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1289, dated June 13, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

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

(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: It has been found on in-service aircraft that some aileron tab bellcrank assemblies were not in accordance with the definition drawings. The main item concerned is the retainer Part Number S2711004620000, which has been manufactured with a hole larger than it should be, or redrilled out of limits. The function of the retainer is to maintain the spacer in position in case of rupture or loss of the bolt which links the tab control rod to the bellcrank assembly. If the diameter of the retainer hole is out of limit, the retainer function is lost and fail-safe installation is no longer ensured. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of the aileron tab bellcrank functionality, resulting in diminished control of the aircraft. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 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 April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19768). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found on in-service aircraft that some aileron tab bellcrank assemblies were not in accordance with the definition drawings. The main item concerned is the retainer Part Number S2711004620000, which has been manufactured with a hole larger than it should be, or redrilled out of limits. The function of the retainer is to maintain the spacer in position in case of rupture or loss of the bolt which links the tab control rod to the bellcrank assembly. If the diameter of the retainer hole is out of limit, the retainer function is lost and fail-safe installation is no longer ensured. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of the aileron tab bellcrank functionality, resulting in diminished control of the aircraft. For the reasons stated above, this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)requires the inspection [for proper hole diameter] of the aileron tab bellcrank retainer and, if necessary, the restoration of a proper installation [replacing any retainer which does not meet specified limits with a new retainer]. Corrective actions also include doing a general visual inspection

(GVI)for discrepancies (corrosion, deformation, scratches, or other defects) of the bolt and fasteners of the bellcrank assembly. 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 51 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $8,160, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this 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: **2008-13-24 ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional (Formerly Aerospatiale):** Amendment 39-15587. Docket No. FAA-2008-0409; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-265-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to ATR Model ATR42 airplanes, certificated in any category, all models, all serial numbers, except airplanes which have received ATR modification 04372 (aileron spring tab) in production or ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-27-0081 or Service Bulletin ATR42-27-0092 in service; and ATR Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, and -212 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except airplanes which have received ATR modification 04373 (aileron spring tab) in production or ATR Service Bulletin ATR72-27-1045 in service. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

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

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: It has been found on in-service aircraft that some aileron tab bellcrank assemblies were not in accordance with the definition drawings. The main item concerned is the retainer Part Number S2711004620000, which has been manufactured with a hole larger than it should be, or redrilled out of limits. The function of the retainer is to maintain the spacer in position in case of rupture or loss of the bolt which links the tab control rod to the bellcrank assembly. If the diameter of the retainer hole is out of limit, the retainer function is lost and fail-safe installation is no longer ensured. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of the aileron tab bellcrank functionality, resulting in diminished control of the aircraft. For the reasons stated above, this Airworthiness Directive

(GVI)for discrepancies (corrosion, deformation, scratches, or other defects) of the bolt and fasteners of the bellcrank assembly. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Measure the hole diameter of the retainer of the aileron automatic tab bellcrank assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-27-0098 or ATR72-27-1060, both dated December 19, 2006, as applicable. If the hole diameter is within specified limits, no further actions are required by paragraph

(f)of this AD for that retainer.

(2)If any retainer exceeds the hole diameter limits specified in Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-27-0098 or ATR72-27-1060, both dated December 19, 2006, as applicable, before further flight, replace the retainer with a retainer that meets hole diameter limits, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. For any airplane for which a replacement retainer is not available, before further flight, do a GVI for discrepancies of the bolt and fasteners of the bellcrank assembly. If any discrepancies of the bolt and fasteners are found, replace the retainer before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. If no discrepancies are found, replace the retainer no later than 2 flight days after the hole measurement, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a GVI is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, 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 2006-0376, dated December 19, 2006; and Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletins ATR42-27-0098 and ATR72-27-1060, both dated December 19, 2006; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-27-0098, dated December 19, 2006; or Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR72-27-1060, dated December 19, 2006; as applicable; 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 ATR, 316 Route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France.

(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 June 10, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14477 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0536; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-030-AD; Amendment 39-15595; AD 2008-13-32] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

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

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP 10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified. If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity

(CG)and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved limits which may result in control difficulty. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2008. On August 12, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4145; fax:

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 9, 2008 (73 FR 26351). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP 10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified. If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity

(CG)and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved limits which may result in control difficulty. To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates revision of the AFM which introduces the corrected values and replaces the previous loading graphs by loading tables. 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 FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 31 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be to be $2,480, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-32 APEX Aircraft:** Amendment 39-15595; Docket No. FAA-2008-0536; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-030-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to CAP 10B airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including 282, certificated in any category. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 08: Leveling and Weighing. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP 10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified. If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity

(CG)and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved limits which may result in control difficulty. To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive

(AD)mandates revision of the AFM which introduces the corrected values and replaces the previous loading graphs by loading tables. Actions and Compliance

(f)Unless already done, within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after August 12, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), incorporate Apex Aircraft AVION CAP 10B Document Number 1000977 GB, Revision 8, dated February 2007 into the limitations section of the airplane flight manual as specified in APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 030502, dated April 11, 2008. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR 43.7 may do this action. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following 14 CFR 43.9. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

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

(816)329-4145; fax:

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

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

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

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

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)AD No. 2008-0071, dated April 15, 2008; and APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 030502, dated April 11, 2008, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 030502, dated April 11, 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 Apex Aircraft, Bureau de Navigabilité, 1 route de Troyes, 21121 DAROIS, France.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 19, 2008. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14484 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD; Amendment 39-15594; AD 2008-13-31] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000 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: In service events have shown that, after implementation of Dassault Aviation SB (service bulletin) F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal stabilizer. It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its structural integrity. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 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 March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13511). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: In service events have shown that, after implementation of Dassault Aviation SB (service bulletin) F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal stabilizer. It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its structural integrity. The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)is to secure safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking devices. 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 229 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 90 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 $1,648,800, or $7,200 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: **2008-13-31 Dassault Aviation:** Amendment 39-15594. Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those that have incorporated Modification M2275 during production or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-298 in service. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 54: Nacelles/Pylons. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: In service events have shown that, after implementation of Dassault Aviation SB (service bulletin) F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal stabilizer. It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its structural integrity. The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive

(AD)is to secure safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking devices. Actions and Compliance

(f)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)Modify the existing engine cowls locking system in accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007.

(2)Before or concurrent with the modification required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the engine cowling attachments in accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001 (Modification M1579).

(3)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletins F2000-298, Revision 1, dated October 31, 2006, or Revision 2, dated April 12, 2007; and F2000-166, dated June 27, 2001; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. 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, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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.

(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 Airworthiness Directive 2007-0016, dated January 12, 2007; and Dassault Service Bulletins F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001; and F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 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 June 8, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14579 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0673; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-117-AD; Amendment 39-15606; AD 2008-14-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER Series Airplanes Approved for Extended-Range Twin-Engine Operational Performance Standards (ETOPS) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection to determine the part number of the cargo compartment fire suppression filter/regulator. This AD also requires, for certain airplanes, a revision of the “Maximum Diversion Time in Minutes” for ETOPS operation specified in the Operations Specifications. For certain airplanes, this AD also provides for optional replacement of the cargo compartment fire suppression filter/regulator, which would allow revision of the “Maximum Diversion Time in Minutes” for ETOPS operation specified in the Operations Specifications to restore the airplane's full ETOPS capability. This AD results from a report that the filter/regulator installed in the cargo fire suppression system did not meter the Halon for the certified duration during ETOPS flight tests. We are issuing this AD to prevent ETOPS operation with insufficient cargo fire suppression capability, which could result in an uncontained fire in the cargo compartment. DATES: This AD is effective July 23, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 23, 2008. We must receive comments on this AD by September 8, 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;* 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: Robert Hettman, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6457; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion This AD results from a report that the filter/regulator installed in the cargo fire suppression system did not meter the Halon for the certified duration during extended-range twin-engine operational performance standards (ETOPS) flight tests conducted by Boeing. Results of an investigation by the filter/regulator supplier, Kidde Aerospace, showed that an incorrect test adapter was used during the calibration procedure to set the filter/regulator flow rate. The incorrect test adapter affected the calibrated flow rate setting, allowing the Halon to flow too fast, resulting in less cargo fire suppression duration. It is uncertain how many cargo compartment fire suppression filters/regulators were delivered with the incorrect calibration. To date, we have received no reports of in-service events related to this issue. ETOPS operation with insufficient cargo fire suppression capability, if not corrected, could result in an uncontained fire in the cargo compartment. Relevant Service Information We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0044, dated April 24, 2008; and Revision 1, dated June 19, 2008 (for Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for replacing the fire suppression filter/regulator with a new filter/regulator, which restores the fire suppression capability to the certified duration and allows the operator to resume flights at the airplane's full ETOPS capability. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the 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 AD requires a one-time inspection to determine the part number of the cargo compartment fire suppression filter/regulator. This AD also requires, for certain airplanes, a revision of the “Maximum Diversion Time in Minutes” for ETOPS operation specified in the Operations Specifications. For certain airplanes, this AD also provides for optional replacement of the cargo compartment fire suppression filter/regulator, which would allow revision of the “Maximum Diversion Time in Minutes” for ETOPS operation specified in the Operations Specifications to restore the airplane's full ETOPS capability. FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date An uncontained fire in the cargo compartment, especially during an ETOPS flight where alternate airports may not be available, is a critical safety risk. Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil aircraft and thus, the critical need to assure the proper functioning of the fire suppression system in the cargo compartment 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 than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0673; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-117-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 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: **2008-14-11 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15606. Docket No. FAA-2008-0673; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-117-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective July 23, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; approved for extended-range twin-engine operational performance standards (ETOPS). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that the filter/regulator installed in the cargo fire suppression system did not meter the Halon for the certified duration during ETOPS flight tests. We are issuing this AD to prevent ETOPS operation with insufficient cargo fire suppression capability, which could result in an uncontained fire in the cargo compartment. Compliance

(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Inspection To Determine Part Number of the Filter/Regulator

(f)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the filter/regulator for the fire suppression system in the lower cargo compartment to determine whether a Kidde Aerospace filter/regulator having a part number identified in Table 1 of this AD is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the filter/regulator can be conclusively determined from that review. Table 1.—Applicable Kidde Aerospace Filters/Regulators Model Filter/Regulator Part No.

(1)777-200 and -200LR series airplanes 473494-1, -2, or -3; or 473995-1, -2, or -3.

(2)777-300 and 777-300ER series airplanes 473857-1, -2, or -3. Revision of the Operations Specifications

(g)Except as provided in paragraph

(i)of this AD, if a Kidde Aerospace cargo compartment fire suppression filter/regulator identified in Table 1 of this AD is found installed during the inspection or records check required by paragraph

(f)of this AD: Before further flight after doing the inspection or records check required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, revise the “Maximum Diversion Time In Minutes,” specified in the FAA-approved Operations Specifications, Document D086, in accordance with the applicable instructions contained in Boeing Model 777 ETOPS Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures, Document D044W054, Revision K, dated June 12, 2008. Optional Replacement of the Filter/Regulator for Certain Airplanes

(h)For Model 777-200, -300, and -300ER series airplanes: Once the cargo compartment fire suppression filter/regulator has been replaced with a new or serviceable filter/regulator in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0044, dated April 24, 2008; or Revision 1, dated June 19, 2008; the “Maximum Diversion Time In Minutes,” specified in the FAA-approved Operations Specifications, Document D086, may be revised in accordance with the applicable instructions contained in Boeing Model 777 ETOPS Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures, Document D044W054, Revision K, dated June 12, 2008, to restore the airplane's full ETOPS capability. Exception to Operations Specifications Revision

(i)The revision to the Operations Specifications specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD is not required if, before further flight after a Kidde Aerospace cargo compartment fire suppression filter/regulator identified in Table 1 of this AD is found installed on any airplane, the filter/regulator replacement described in paragraph

(h)of this AD is accomplished. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Robert Hettman, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6457; fax

(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(k)You must use Boeing Model 777 ETOPS Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures, Document D044W054, Revision K, dated June 12, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you accomplish the optional actions specified by this AD, you must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0044, dated April 24, 2008; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-26-0044, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2008; as applicable; to do those actions, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (The revision date of Boeing Model 777 ETOPS Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures, Document D044W054, Revision K, is located on the last page of the document; no other page of this document contains the revision date.)

(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.

(AD)for certain Airbus Model A330 airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual

(AFM)to prohibit the flightcrew from performing CAT 2 and CAT 3 automatic landings and roll-outs at certain airports. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for the AFM revision. This AD results from data showing that the magnetic variation table installed in certain Honeywell and Northrop Grumman air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs) is obsolete at certain airports. We are issuing this AD to prevent the airplane from departing the runway during a CAT 2 or CAT 3 automatic landing or roll-out, due to differences between actual magnetic variation and the values in the ADIRU magnetic variation tables. DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this 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: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

(425)227-1149. 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 Airbus Model A330 series airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67868). That NPRM proposed to require revising the airplane flight manual

(AFM)to prohibit the flightcrew from performing CAT 2 and CAT 3 automatic landings and roll-outs at certain airports. That NPRM also proposed to provide an optional terminating action for the AFM revision. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received from the commenter. Request To Refer to Additional Service Information Mr. Jean-Dominique Bouton states that the “Optional Terminating Action” paragraph does not include the latest air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) standards, which can be installed in place of the older standards addressed by the NPRM. The commenter identifies the following service bulletins as optional terminating actions to the AFM revision: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3183, dated June 16, 2006; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3191, dated March 16, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4173, dated June 16, 2006; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4180, dated March 16, 2007. As justification, the commenter states that these service bulletins include the latest ADIRU standards, which can be installed in place of the older standards addressed by this AD. We infer the commenter requests that we revise paragraph

(i)of this AD by including the service bulletins identified above. We agree to add Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3183 to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4173 to paragraph (i)(4) of this AD. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3183 incorporates a later ADIRU standard than the one specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3159, dated February 10, 2005, which is identified as a terminating action in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4173 also incorporates a later ADIRU standard than the one specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4163, dated February 10, 2005, which is identified as a terminating action in paragraph (i)(4) of this AD. The later ADIRU standard builds on the earlier standard and introduces general improvements and a new magnetic variation table. The service bulletin for the later ADIRU standard has the earlier service bulletin as a concurrent requirement. However, we do not agree to add Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3191 and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4180 to paragraph

(i)of this AD because those service bulletins do not have the service bulletin for the earlier standard as a concurrent requirement. We refer to European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0232, dated August 7, 2006, as related information in paragraph

(k)of this AD. However, under the provisions of paragraph

(j)of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the design change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We also determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 40 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 $3,200, 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: **2008-13-13 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15576. Docket No. FAA-2007-0266; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-170-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with the air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs) identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

(1)Honeywell ADIRUs having part numbers (P/Ns) HG2030AC0X (where X is any number between 0 and 9 inclusive) and P/Ns HG2030ADYY (where YY is any number between 00 and 10 inclusive).

(2)Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton) ADIRUs having P/Ns 465020-030303ZZ (where ZZ is any number between 00 and 12 inclusive). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from data showing that the magnetic variation table installed in certain Honeywell and Northrop Grumman ADIRUs is obsolete at certain airports. We are issuing this AD to prevent the airplane from departing the runway during a CAT 2 or CAT 3 automatic landing or roll-out, due to differences between actual magnetic variation and the values in the ADIRU magnetic variation tables. 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. Temporary Revision

(TR)References

(f)The term “Temporary Revision,” as used in this AD, means the following TRs, as applicable:

(1)For Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes equipped with any Honeywell ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Airbus TR 2.05.00/67, Issue 2, dated September 19, 2007, to the Airbus A330 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM);

(2)For Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes equipped with any Northrop Grumman ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Airbus TR 2.05.00/68, dated March 31, 2006, to the Airbus A330 AFM;

(3)For Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes equipped with any Honeywell ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Airbus TR 2.05.00/87, Issue 2, dated September 19, 2007, to the Airbus A340 AFM; and

(4)For Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes equipped with any Northrop Grumman ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Airbus TR 2.05.00/88, dated March 31, 2006, to the Airbus A340 AFM. AFM Revision

(g)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the Airbus A330 or A340 AFM, as applicable, to prohibit the flightcrew from performing CAT 2 and CAT 3 automatic landings and roll-outs at certain airports by incorporating the applicable Temporary Revision into the AFM. Operate the airplane according to the limitations in the applicable TR.

(h)When the information in the applicable TR has been incorporated into the general revisions of the Airbus A330 or A340 AFM, as applicable, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the TR may be removed from the AFM. Optional Terminating Action

(i)Replacing the ADIRUs with new, improved ADIRUs as specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), or (i)(4) of this AD terminates the AFM revision required by paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(1)For Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes equipped with any Honeywell ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, doing the replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3104, dated July 17, 2003; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3165, dated June 28, 2006.

(2)For Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes equipped with any Northrop Grumman ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, doing the replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3132, dated December 16, 2003, or Revision 01, dated August 18, 2004; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3159, dated February 10, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3183, dated June 16, 2006.

(3)For Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes equipped with any Honeywell ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, doing the replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4114, dated July 17, 2003; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4166, dated June 28, 2006.

(4)For Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes equipped with any Northrop Grumman ADIRU identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, doing the replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4141, dated December 16, 2003, or Revision 01, dated August 18, 2004; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4163, dated February 10, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4173, dated June 16, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(k)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0232, dated August 7, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use the applicable service information contained in Table 1 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you do the optional actions specified in this AD, you must use the applicable service information contained in Table 2 of this AD to do those actions, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

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

(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.* Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference for Required Actions Service Information Issue Date Airbus Temporary Revision 2.05.00/67 to the Airbus A330 Airplane Flight Manual 2 September 19, 2007. Airbus Temporary Revision 2.05.00/68 to the Airbus A330 Airplane Flight Manual Original March 31, 2006. Airbus Temporary Revision 2.05.00/87 to the Airbus A340 Airplane Flight Manual 2 September 19, 2007. Airbus Temporary Revision 2.05.00/88 to the Airbus A340 Airplane Flight Manual Original March 31, 2006. Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference for Optional Actions Service Information Issue Date Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3104 Original July 17, 2003. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3132 Original December 16, 2003. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3132 01 August 18, 2004. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3159 Original February 10, 2005. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3165 Original June 28, 2006. Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3183 Original June 16, 2006. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4114 Original July 17, 2003. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4141 Original December 16, 2003. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4141 01 August 18, 2004. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4163 Original February 10, 2005. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4166 Original June 28, 2006. Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4173 Original June 16, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14468 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0299; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-254-AD; Amendment 39-15593; AD 2008-13-30] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Astra SPX, 1125 Westwind Astra, and Gulfstream 100 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: Two of the fasteners used to attach the “scissors” to the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers were found broken during routine maintenance. The highest loads on the “scissors” occur when using high reverse thrust. Therefore, the reverse thrust must be limited to idle in order to keep the loads at a sufficiently low level to preclude any structural problem. * * * Failure of the attachment fasteners could result in possible in-flight loss of a horizontal or vertical stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 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: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2677; 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 March 14, 2008 (73 FR 13800). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Two of the fasteners used to attach the “scissors” to the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers were found broken during routine maintenance. The highest loads on the “scissors” occur when using high reverse thrust. Therefore, the reverse thrust must be limited to idle in order to keep the loads at a sufficiently low level to preclude any structural problem. It was established that on model 1125 Astra, alternate fasteners of inferior strength were sometimes installed. When the originally specified fasteners are installed, the limitations on reverse thrust used may be lifted. For models Astra SPX and G100, however, the limitation remains in effect till further revision of this AD. Failure of the attachment fasteners could result in possible in-flight loss of a horizontal or vertical stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Corrective actions include revising the airplane flight manual (AFM); inspections for damage of the bolts and replacing the bolt, if necessary; and doing related investigative and other corrective actions (eddy current inspection for bolt hole diameter and damage, contact Gulfstream for repair and do repair). 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 129 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 10 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 $33 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 $107,457, or $833 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: **2008-13-30 Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Formerly Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.)** : Amendment 39-15593. Docket No. FAA-2008-0299; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-254-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Astra SPX, 1125 Westwind Astra, and Gulfstream 100 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 004 through 158. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 55: Stabilizers. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Two of the fasteners used to attach the “scissors” to the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers were found broken during routine maintenance. The highest loads on the “scissors” occur when using high reverse thrust. Therefore, the reverse thrust must be limited to idle in order to keep the loads at a sufficiently low level to preclude any structural problem. It was established that on model 1125 Astra, alternate fasteners of inferior strength were sometimes installed. When the originally specified fasteners are installed, the limitations on reverse thrust used may be lifted. For models Astra SPX and G100, however, the limitation remains in effect till further revision of this AD. Failure of the attachment fasteners could result in possible in-flight loss of a horizontal or vertical stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane. Corrective actions include revising the airplane flight manual (AFM); inspections for damage of the bolts and replacing the bolt, if necessary; and doing related investigative and other corrective actions (eddy current inspection for bolt hole diameter and damage, contact Gulfstream for repair and do repair). Actions and Compliance

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

(1)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the Limitations section of the AFM by incorporating the information in the applicable Israel Aircraft Industries (Gulfstream) temporary revisions (TR): Astra AFM TR 15; Astra SPX AFM TR 8; or Gulfstream 100 AFM TR 1; all dated June 14, 2007; into the Limitations section of the Gulfstream Astra, Astra SPX, or Gulfstream 100 AFM, as applicable. The TRs limit the normal use of reverse thrust to idle. Note 1: The actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of Israel Aircraft Industries (Gulfstream) Astra AFM TR 15; Astra SPX AFM TR 8; or Gulfstream 100 AFM TR 1; all dated June 14, 2007; as applicable; into the Limitations section of the Gulfstream Astra, Astra SPX, or Gulfstream 100 AFM, as applicable. When the applicable TR has been included in the general revisions of the applicable AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM.

(2)*For all airplanes:* Within 25 flight hours or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD in accordance with Part A of Gulfstream Alert Service Bulletin 100-55A-293, dated June 22, 2007.

(i)Visually inspect the attachment bolts and replace any damaged bolt before further flight.

(ii)Perform a detailed visual inspection of fittings with part number (P/N) 25W357222-501-51, and fillers with P/N 25W4011001-003, and surrounding structure for damage. If blind bolts with P/N MS21141U0612 are installed and no damage is found, no further action is required. If any damage is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. If any bolt with P/N AN173C11 is installed and damage is found, replace the bolt and do all related investigative and applicable corrective actions before further flight.

(3)For Model 1125 Westwind Astra airplanes (serial numbers 004, 011 through 072 inclusive, and 073 through 078 inclusive): Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all P/N AN173C11 bolts, and do all related investigative and applicable corrective actions before further flight, as detailed in Part B of Gulfstream Alert Service Bulletin 100-55A-293, dated June 22, 2007. Accomplishment of Part B of the alert service bulletin constitutes terminating action for paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Israel Aircraft Industries (Gulfstream) TR 15 may be deleted and unlimited use of reverse thrust is allowed per the Gulfstream Astra AFM. Note 2: Reverse thrust limitations remain in effect for Model Astra SPX and Gulfstream 100 airplanes. FAA AD Differences Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: *Compliance Time:* The compliance time required by the MCAI or service information for performing the AFM revision is immediate on receipt of this AD; however, to avoid inadvertently grounding airplanes, this AD requires performing the AFM revision within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. 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: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2677; 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 Israeli Airworthiness Directive 55-07-06-07R1, dated June 26, 2007; Gulfstream Alert Service Bulletin 100-55A-293, dated June 22, 2007; and Israel Aircraft Industries (Gulfstream) Astra SPX AFM TR 8, Astra AFM TR 15, and Gulfstream 100 AFM TR 1, all dated June 14, 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Gulfstream Alert Service Bulletin 100-55A-293, dated June 22, 2007, and the temporary revisions specified in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable, 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Mail Station D-25, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206.

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 1.—Temporary Revisions Incorporated by Reference Israel Aircraft Industries (Gulfstream) Dated To the Astra SPX Temporary Revision 8 June 14, 2007 Gulfstream Astra SPX Airplane Flight Manual. Astra Temporary Revision 15 June 14, 2007 Gulfstream Astra Airplane Flight Manual. Gulfstream 100 Temporary Revision 1 June 14, 2007 Gulfstream 100 Airplane Flight Manual. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 6, 2008. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-14469 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28255; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-023-AD; Amendment 39-15589; AD 2008-13-26] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model 1329 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Lockheed Model 1329 series airplanes. This AD requires determining the part number on the steering cylinder assembly for the nose landing gear (NLG), determining the total flight cycles accumulated on the NLG steering cylinder assembly, repetitively replacing the assembly, inspecting for missing tow turning limit markings, and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of numerous failures of the NLG steering cylinder. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of hydraulic pressure and steering control. DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, 86 South Cobb Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063. 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: Hector Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone

(770)703-6069; fax

(770)703-6097. 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 Lockheed Model 1329 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29088). That NPRM proposed to require determining the part number on the steering cylinder assembly for the nose landing gear (NLG), determining the total flight cycles accumulated on the NLG steering cylinder assembly, repetitively replacing the assembly, inspecting for missing tow turning limit markings, and performing corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Withdraw NPRM: Inadequate To Correct Unsafe Condition Faith Landmark Ministries requests that we withdraw the NPRM because it does not address the real problem with the NLG steering cylinder: Possible fatigue cracking due to machining errors during manufacture. We disagree. Based on information from Lockheed Martin, due to lack of access to this area there is no reliable inspection that can be performed in the thread relief area where the failures are occurring. The only way to do the inspection is to disassemble the actuator steering cylinder—which would destroy the cylinder. Originally the NLG steering cylinder was a life-limited part, but unknown to Lockheed Martin the life limit was removed from the Lockheed JetStar/Handbook of Operating and Maintenance Instructions (HOMI). We have determined that it is necessary to issue the final rule to re-establish a relevant life limit and to address the identified unsafe condition. Request To Remove Certain Cylinder Part Numbers as Affected Faith Landmark Ministries and Carl A. Smith request that we revise the NPRM to remove P/N JL1955-7 steering cylinder as an affected part, because there is no record of a JL1955-7 steering cylinder failure due to stress corrosion cracking. We disagree. We received reports of several more service failures of P/N JL1955-7 steering cylinders as a result of fatigue cracking in the thread relief area. Although no signs of corrosion were found in these particular failures, access to this area is difficult, and a reliable inspection cannot be performed in the thread relief area where the failures are occurring. Further, disassembling the actuator steering cylinder would destroy the cylinder. Crack growth cannot be shown and inspection intervals cannot be developed because the initial detectable crack length is longer than the critical crack length. As a result, we find it necessary to impose a fatigue-based life limit on the actuator steering cylinder. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Suggestion of Possible Batch Problem Mr. Smith and Faith Landmark Ministries suggest the possibility of a batch problem with the P/N JL1955-7 steering cylinder. Faith Landmark Ministries states that four cylinders failed within two years on Lockheed Martin airplanes that had very close serial numbers (S/N 5211, 5213, 5215, and 5218) and another cylinder failed on an airplane having S/N 5210. Mr. Smith also notes that the airplanes on which the parts experienced fatigue failures are bunched together (S/Ns 5210, 5213, 5215, and 5218). The commenters made no specific request. We have reviewed the data and have found no evidence of any batch problem with the steering cylinders having P/N JL1955-7. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Withdraw NPRM: Documentation Errors Faith Landmark Ministries requests that we withdraw the NPRM because of major errors in the supportive documentation and data supplied by Lockheed Martin. We disagree. The identified unsafe condition is a serious safety issue that must be corrected. Lockheed Service Bulletins 329-300, Revision C, and 329II-32-8, Revision B, both dated September 5, 2006, were cited as the appropriate sources of service information for the NPRM's proposed requirements. The actions specified in these service bulletins adequately address the identified unsafe condition; however, these service bulletins did contain discrepancies, which Lockheed Martin has corrected in Lockheed Service Bulletin 329-300, Revision D, and 329II-32-8, Revision C, both dated October 4, 2007. Relevant changes to the service bulletins are outlined below. We have determined that it is necessary to issue this final rule in order to address the identified unsafe condition. We have revised paragraph

(f)of this final rule to require the revised service bulletins, and provided credit for accomplishment of the earlier revisions. Requests To Address Service Bulletin Discrepancies Faith Landmark Ministries requests correction of certain discrepancies, as outlined below, in the service information cited in the NPRM. Lockheed Martin also stated that several operators have indicated a need for additional instructions on rebuilding the NLG steering cylinder assembly. Since we issued the NPRM, Lockheed issued Lockheed Service Bulletin 329-300, Revision D, and 329II-32-8, Revision C, both dated October 4, 2007. These revisions address many of the problems noted by the commenters, but do not add work beyond the actions specified in the previous revision levels. The service bulletins also extend the life limits for certain NLG steering cylinder assemblies (as set forth in the Life Limits table below). Revised Jetstar NLG Steering Cylinder Assembly Life Limits Component Part No. Life limit (in flight cycles) 7049-T73 die forging JL1955-5 2,175 7050-T7451 plate JL1955-9 1,113 4340 steel bar JL1955-801 3,211 We have revised paragraph

(f)of this AD to require the revised service bulletins and added new paragraph

(j)of this AD to provide credit for work already done in accordance with the previous revisions. Paragraph 2.B.(1) of the service bulletins indicates disassembling, cleaning, and inspecting the NLG steering actuator assembly per “HOMI 32.4.4.1” (of the Lockheed JetStar/Handbook of Operating and Maintenance Instructions), but the correct reference is “HOMI Figure 32-26A.” Faith Landmark Ministries states that for nose steering system rigging instructions, paragraph 2.B.(5) of the service bulletins refers to “HOMI Figure 32-22,” but the correct reference is “HOMI Figure 32-25” and that paragraph 2.B.(4) should refer to “HOMI Figure 32-26A.” The service bulletins have been revised to correct these discrepancies. Although the revised service bulletins do not specify the HOMI, they incorporate the necessary figure and instructions. Paragraph 2.B.(2) of the service bulletins specifies to identify the replacement NLG steering cylinder assembly with a serial number in the location and method specified by engineering drawing JL-1955, Revision AE or later. Faith Landmark Ministries states that one or more JetStar operators will probably use the same serial number so that, after repair, overhaul, or replacement, multiple units could have the same identifier. Further, the commenter states that the NLG steering cylinders are not serialized, so they cannot be traced. The commenter notes that many operators, trying to comply with an earlier version of the service bulletin, installed exchanged overhauled units, which are not serialized. As a result, the cylinders are mixed within the fleet, and it is possible that some of the mis-machined cylinders are still in service. We agree that the identification of the NLG steering cylinder assembly must be clear. The revised service bulletins specify completing the identification plate to indicate compliance with the service bulletin, and to indicate new P/N JL1501-7 or JL1501-9 for the NLG steering actuator assembly. It is our understanding that the JL1955-13 cylinder assembly (which uses the JL1955-15 cylinder) will have a serial number consisting of a vendor cage code and sequential numerical lot number beginning at -001. For example, the serial number should be 8 characters XXXXX001, where XXXXX is the vendor cage code unique to the manufacturer (vendor) and -001 identifies the lot number. The proposed serial number will tie the cylinder assembly to a specific manufacturer and lot number for traceability. As we discussed previously, we have revised this final rule to refer to the revised service bulletins. Requests for Revised Engineering Drawing Mr. Smith and Faith Landmark Ministries refer to two reports by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):

(1)The report associated with the NPRM (regarding a 1998 incident involving a Lockheed Model 1329 airplane on which the nose landing gear wheel locked sideways on landing and caused the airplane to run off the runway) and

(2)NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Report 99-107, dated April 13, 1999. The commenters note that the Lockheed engineering drawing for the cylinder does not clearly define the machining details of this region of the cylinder, but shows a large radius without dimensions. The commenters suggest that this indicates a design problem that needs to be corrected. The commenters state that the fatigue origins were all located in a very straight circular path in the tread relief area around the inner surface of the cylinder. We infer that the commenters are requesting that we wait to issue the final rule until a revised drawing is available. We agree that the NTSB reports could indicate a design problem. Lockheed Martin examined engineering drawing JL-1955, Revision AD, dated March 10, 1978, and determined that view A on sheet 1 did not contain sufficient clarity to consistently produce the cylinder in a condition that Lockheed Martin had intended. Lockheed Martin examined the engineering drawing and found that the radius was defined but needed clarification. Lockheed Martin has prepared an engineering order against drawing JL-1955 and determined that sufficient detail now exists to consistently produce the cylinder with the intended thread relief groove. However, the revised service bulletins removed any reference to drawing JL-1955, Revision AD or AE. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Clarify Criteria for Maintenance Personnel Faith Landmark Ministries asserts that reassembling the NLG steering cylinder should be done by qualified shop persons or overhaul specialists at an appropriately rated repair station. We infer that the commenter is requesting that we revise the NPRM to clarify the qualifications of personnel allowed to reassemble the NLG steering cylinder. As long as the actions are to be accomplished by persons prescribed in section 43.3 (“Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.3), the persons authorized to perform the work required in an AD are not prescribed by the AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Remove Spares Prohibition Faith Landmark Ministries states that Lockheed Martin issued a JetStar Assessment, dated June 8, 2007, which reviews the history of the P/N JL1955-7 cylinder failures due to fatigue at the thread relief. This is the current configuration of most JetStars. The commenter is aware of six P/N JL1955-7 cylinders that were built as spares. The commenter states that there is no need to remove all the existing P/N JL1955-7 NLG cylinders from service. Lockheed Martin has developed a way to examine these cylinders; Lockheed Martin inspected the six cylinders that were in stock. We disagree with the commenter's assertion that Lockheed Martin has developed an adequate inspection for the P/N JL1955-7 NLG cylinders that would detect critical cracking. The JetStar assessment by Lockheed Martin addresses the service history of the failed cylinder along with material changes made on P/N JL1955-7, and explores the possibility of nondestructive inspections. Lockheed Martin concluded that combined ultrasonic and eddy current inspections would probably be ineffective. Lockheed Martin also considered a fluorescent penetrant inspection, provided a time interval could be calculated for continued safe flight and the cylinder could be disassembled for inspection. Based on information provided to the FAA, no available nondestructive inspection would detect a critical crack in the thread relief area where the failures are occurring because access to this area is unavailable. As stated previously, the only way to inspect the area is to disassemble the steering cylinder—which would destroy the cylinder. However, according to the provisions of paragraph

(l)of the final rule, we may approve requests for alternative method of compliances (AMOCs) if the request includes data that prove that the AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request for Information on Addressing Unsafe Condition Faith Landmark Ministries questions why Lockheed Martin did not take any action by way of an AD or similar to ensure that all the P/N JL1955-7 cylinders in the fleet were inspected for problems as soon as Lockheed Martin noticed the grouping of aircraft serial numbers experiencing steering cylinder failures or immediately after the incident that occurred in Houston in 1998, and the subsequent NTSB report. Only the FAA may initiate and issue ADs. Lockheed Martin did report the in-service failures to the FAA, and communicated with the NTSB as required. Data were gathered to enable a full assessment. The commenter made no specific request to change the NPRM. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue. Request for Clarification of Unsafe Condition and Corrective Action Faith Landmark Ministries further questions why, when Service Bulletins 329-300 and 329II-32-8 came out in 2000, they referred only to “corrosion problems” and included no requirement to inspect the steering cylinder for the mis-machined thread relief that caused the failure of the steering cylinder in the 1998 incident that resulted from the unsafe condition and prompted the AD. The incident was investigated by the NTSB. Lockheed Martin was in contact with the NTSB and waiting for a final report and the actual part before they could properly make the assessment as shown in the service bulletins. The new revisions of the service bulletins issued in 2007 include an inspection of all threads for burrs or evidence of cross threading. The commenter made no specific request to change the NPRM. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. Request To Revise Cost Estimate Lockheed Martin states that the estimated cost for the part should be $14,876.57 per airplane, but the NPRM indicated no cost for parts. We infer that the operator requests that we revise the cost estimate of the NPRM. We agree. The NPRM provided the estimated costs for the inspection only. This final rule includes the costs for the conditionally required cylinder replacement. Request To Revise Description of Unsafe Condition Lockheed Martin requests that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM to add “fatigue cracking in the thread relief” as a possible cause of the NLG steering cylinder failures. We agree with Lockheed Martin's rationale, but the Discussion section is not repeated in a final rule so we have not changed this final rule regarding this issue. Request To Revise Lockheed Martin Address Lockheed Martin requests that we revise the NPRM to update its address. We have changed the appropriate references in the final rule accordingly. Request To Remove Life Limit Lockheed Martin indicates it plans to revise Service Bulletins 329-300 and 329II-32-8 to remove the life limit on cylinder assembly P/N JL1955-9. Lockheed Martin believes that no P/N JL1955-9 cylinders have been built, as this material will not be the preferred material for replacement steering cylinders. We disagree that the life limit on P/N JL1955-9 should be removed. We have received no evidence indicating that this part does not have corrosion or fatigue issues, in light of the incidents that have occurred. The revised service bulletins did not remove the life limit on any of the cylinder assemblies. No change to the final rule is necessary regarding this issue. Request To Clarify Cost Estimate Four Star Int'l, Inc., states that replacement cylinders should be made available to operators at no cost. The commenter reports that an NLG steering actuator failed apparently due to stress, with no corrosion observed. Because Lockheed Martin has since identified the source of the problem, and because this operator has already paid to replace the part once, the commenter contends that future parts costs should be Lockheed Martin's responsibility. The operator made no specific request to change the NPRM. Operators are responsible for maintaining their airplanes to the type design. The FAA cannot direct payment for replacement parts by any party. Operators should discuss any issues regarding these costs with the airplane manufacturer. We have made no change to the final rule regarding this issue. Additional Change to NPRM Paragraph

(g)of the NPRM specified to replace any cylinder assembly having P/N JL1955-1 or JL1955-3 with a new assembly, and paragraph

(j)of the NPRM (paragraph

(k)of this final rule) would have prohibited the installation of any cylinder assembly having P/N JL1955-1 or JL1955-3. (P/N JL1955-3 is a cylinder, rather than an assembly.) Since the P/N JL1955-1 cylinder assembly uses the P/N JL1955-3 cylinder, we have deleted the references to P/N JL1955-3 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 48 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspect for P/N 3 $80 $0 $240 34 $8,160. Replace assembly 2 80 14,877 15,037, per replacement Up to 34 Up to $511,258, per replacement. 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: **2008-13-26 Lockheed** : Amendment 39-15589. Docket No. FAA-2007-28255; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-023-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following airplanes, certificated in any category.

(1)Lockheed Model 1329-23A, 1329-23D, and 1329-23E series airplanes; serial numbers 5001 through 5162 inclusive.

(2)Lockheed Model 1329-25 series airplanes, serial numbers 5201 through 5240 inclusive. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of numerous failures of the nose landing gear

(NLG)steering cylinder. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of hydraulic pressure and steering control. 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 “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Service Bulletins Lockheed Service Bulletin Revision Date Affected airplanes 329-300 D October 4, 2007 1329-23A, 1329-23D, 1329-23E. 329II-32-8 C October 4, 2007 1329-25. Inspection for Cylinder Assembly Part Number

(g)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number (P/N) on the steering cylinder assembly for the nose landing gear (NLG). A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number can be conclusively determined from that review. Replace any cylinder assembly having P/N JL1955-1 with a new assembly before further flight in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Life Limits

(h)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Review the airplane records to determine the total flight cycles accumulated on the NLG steering cylinder assembly, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Before any steering cylinder assembly component reaches its life limit, as specified in Table 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace the cylinder assembly with a new assembly in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. If the steering cylinder assembly's age cannot be positively determined from the records review, replace it within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Thereafter, replace the cylinder assembly at intervals not to exceed the life limits as specified in the applicable service bulletin. Inspection for Tow Turning Limit Markings

(i)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Perform a general visual inspection above the NLG doors to detect missing tow turning limit markings, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. If any markings are absent, restore/apply markings before further flight in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Credit for Actions Done per Previous Version of Service Bulletins

(j)Accomplishment of the actions specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 329-300, Revision C, dated September 5, 2006, or 329II-32-8, Revision B, dated September 5, 2006, as applicable, before the effective date of this AD, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Parts Installation

(k)As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any airplane a NLG steering cylinder assembly that has P/N JL1955-1. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Hector Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ACE-119A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone

(770)703-6069; fax

(770)703-6097; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(m)You must use Lockheed Service Bulletin 329-300, Revision D, dated October 4, 2007; or Lockheed Service Bulletin 329II-32-8, Revision C, dated October 4, 2007; as applicable, 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 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, 86 South Cobb Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063.

(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires various repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, and other specified and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also provides for an optional preventive modification, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report that the upper frame of the fuselage was severed between stringers S-13L and S-14L at station 747, and the adjacent frame at station 767 had a 1.3-inch-long crack at the same stringer location. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frame and adjacent lap joint. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and result in decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective August 12, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6447; fax

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

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

(AD)that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63831). That NPRM proposed to require various repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, and other specified and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also provides for an optional preventive modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Requests To Clarify Certain Paragraphs Boeing, Southwest Airlines (SWA), United Airlines (UA), and the Air Transport Association

(ATA)on behalf of its member UA, ask that certain language in certain paragraphs of the NPRM be clarified, as follows: Boeing states that the intent of paragraph

(h)of the NPRM is unclear, and the conditional statement could be misinterpreted. Boeing notes that the statement “the structure that has been damaged is not covered in the structural repair manual”

(SRM)will likely be interpreted differently by each airline. Boeing adds that this frame area is relatively complex with a frame splice, stringer clips, and, in some cases, a shear tie in the area of the repair. Boeing states that only specific SRM repairs can be used to fix the frame in this complex area; for that reason, the referenced service bulletin specifically lists the SRM sections that can be used, and recommends contacting Boeing if the existing repairs are not per these sections. Boeing notes that there are other frames and general formed section repairs in the SRM that operators could have used that may or may not work for this area; for those cases or others that may not have been repaired in accordance with the SRM, Boeing would like to evaluate them for structural adequacy. Boeing believes the intent of paragraph

(h)is to cover this situation, except to refer to paragraph

(j)of the NPRM instead of contacting Boeing. Boeing recommends that paragraph

(h)be rewritten as follows: “If during the accomplishment of the corrective actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, for airplanes for which a repair has previously been accomplished, if the repair is not per the 737-400 SRM 53-00-07, Figure 201, Repair 1, or 737-500 SRM 53-00-07, Figure 201, Repair 1, or 737-300 SRM 53-00-07, Figure 201, Repair 1, or 737-100/200 SRM 53-10-4, Figure 1, as applicable, before further flight, repair in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD.” ATA states that UA indicates that the term “structural repair manual,” as specified in paragraph

(h)of the NPRM, should be replaced with “Service Bulletin 737-53A1261 Part III.” We agree that paragraph

(h)of this AD should be clarified; there are many repairs for this structure specified in the SRM that could be installed which may not adequately address the unsafe condition. Therefore, we have changed paragraph

(h)for clarification, as follows: “For airplanes on which a repair has been previously accomplished: If, during accomplishment of the corrective actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, it is found that the repair was not done per the Boeing 737-100/200 SRM 53-10-4, Figure 1, or the Boeing 737-300/400/500 SRM 53-00-07, Figure 201, Repair 1, as applicable; before further flight, repair in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD.” SWA requests clarification of paragraphs

(h)and

(i)of the NPRM. SWA states that if an SRM repair is considered a repair option to inspection findings per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated January 19, 2006, as indicated in paragraph

(h)of the NPRM, then paragraph

(i)of the NPRM should specify that SRM repairs would be an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)and terminating action to the inspections specified in that service bulletin. We do not agree that paragraph

(i)of the NPRM should be changed to specify that SRM repairs are an AMOC and terminating action to the inspections specified in the service bulletin. The SRM is referenced in the service bulletin as an acceptable method for accomplishing certain repairs; therefore, it is not necessary to identify the SRM in paragraph

(i)because the service bulletin (which includes the SRM contents) is already identified in that paragraph. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Boeing asks that we clarify paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM to include a reference to Appendices A through X to the service bulletin citation, for not only the repair, but also the preventive modification. Boeing recommends that paragraph (i)(1) be rewritten as follows: “Accomplishment of the repair specified in Part 3, or the preventive modification specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006.” Boeing adds that paragraph (i)(1) as currently written does not associate the appendices to the preventive modification. Appendices A through V of the service bulletin are directly applicable to the preventive modification. We agree that paragraph (i)(1) of the NPRM (paragraph (j)(1) of this AD) should be clarified to add a reference to Appendices A through X to the service bulletin citation. This change links the appendices to the preventive modification, as well as the repair. We have changed paragraph (j)(1) accordingly. UA asks that we clarify paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM. UA notes that previously installed SRM repairs do not terminate re-inspections; although paragraph (i)(3) may lead an operator to think a previously installed SRM repair does terminate those inspections, as they are approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office. We understand UA's comment. As we explained previously, for clarification we have added a new paragraph

(i)to this AD to define the action for airplanes on which a repair has been previously accomplished. Paragraph

(j)of this AD, if accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of this AD for the repaired or modified frames only. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Clarify Certain Sections of the Preamble of the NPRM Boeing requests that certain sections in the preamble of the NPRM be clarified for the following reasons: 1. Boeing states that the first paragraph of the Discussion section incorrectly references a Model 737-300 airplane, but the airplane found cracked was a Model 737-200 airplane. 2. Boeing notes that the last sentence specified in the Other Related Service Information section specifies that the inspections are “recommended.” Boeing states that the inspections are “required,” and suggests incorporating this change to the language. We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, the procedures specified in the service information are not regulatory; the procedures specified in service information can only be required by issuing an AD. We agree that the model referenced in the Discussion section was incorrect; however, the identified sections of the NPRM do not reappear in the final rule. Therefore, we find that no change to the AD is necessary in this regard. Requests To Extend Compliance Times SWA, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), and UA ask that we extend the compliance times for the inspections as follows: SWA asks that we consider a different compliance time for airplanes that have accomplished Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177, since the likelihood of multi-element damage does not exist for airplanes on which that service bulletin has been accomplished at stringer 14 left or right. SWA recommends aligning the initial grace period and repeat intervals at the same frequency as defined in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1216, section 1.E.; i.e., 9,000 flight cycles after issuance of the AD, and repeating the inspections thereafter every 9,000 flight cycles. SWA adds that this will align the interior access and inspection requirements with the frame inspection requirements in both service bulletins. SWA notes that the 9,000-flight-cycle interval would also allow each airplane to reach a heavy maintenance opportunity for the airplane to be in an appropriate setting for accomplishing the required inspections and repairs if required. SWA adds that it had several crack findings on airplanes with over 50,000 flight cycles, and therefore it cannot consider the Boeing findings an anomaly. KLM states that it submitted a service request to Boeing asking them to consider a compliance time for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, which is equal to the compliance time given in AD 2006-26-09, amendment 39-14867 (72 FR 252, January 4, 2007), and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1216, Revision 1, dated June 8, 2006. KLM states that both inspections can then be done simultaneously during a C-check, without additional work. KLM adds that Boeing replied to the service request in October 2006 stating that no change in compliance time was anticipated. KLM notes that the impact of the inspection/preventive modification required by AD 2006-26-09 is similar to the inspection/preventive modification in the NPRM. ATA on behalf of its member UA asks that we consider extending the repetitive inspection interval from 6,000 to 9,000 flight cycles in order to allow airplanes to reach a heavy maintenance opportunity. To date, UA states, it has inspected 960 frames per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261 with no crack findings; the airplanes inspected ranged from 28,500 to 35,500 total flight cycles. UA suggests that the findings on the airplanes cited in the NPRM might be an anomaly rather than a trend if other industry findings are similar to UA's. We do not agree to extend the compliance times. Although we recognize the convenience to the operator if the compliance time is aligned with its maintenance inspections, fatigue cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage is a significant safety issue, and we have determined that the proposed compliance times are warranted based on the effectiveness of the inspection procedure and the rate of crack growth. In developing appropriate compliance times for this AD, we considered those safety issues as well as the recommendations of the manufacturer, the availability of necessary repair parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspections within an interval of time that corresponds to the normal maintenance schedules of most affected operators. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request for Clarification of Compliance Time KLM states that it assumes the new start date of the inspections will be the issue date of the AD, instead of the service bulletin issue date. From this statement we infer that KLM is requesting that we clarify the compliance time specified in paragraph

(f)of the NPRM. We agree that clarification is necessary. We have added a new paragraph

(g)to the AD to clarify the compliance time. We have re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Request To Change Cost Estimate SWA states that the costs of compliance identified in the NPRM are underestimated. SWA states that the inspection, repair of crack findings, and terminating action on uncracked frames is close to 1,200 labor hours at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The cost per airplane is closer to $96,000 than $3,040. This estimate does not include access to the interior of the airplanes, as the airplanes were in a heavy maintenance environment. We infer that the commenter is asking that we revise the cost estimate provided in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost information provided in AD actions describes only the direct costs of the specific requirements. Based on the best data available, the manufacturer provided the number of work hours to do the required actions for this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs, in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. We have made no change to the 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 1,509 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 524 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspections take between 18 and 38 work hours per airplane, depending on airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspections required by this AD for U.S. operators is between $754,560 and $1,592,960, or $1,440 and $3,040 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2008-13-12 Boeing** : Amendment 39-15575. Docket No. FAA-2007-0184; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-140-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)is effective August 12, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated January 19, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that the upper frame of the fuselage was severed between stringers S-13L and S-14L at station 747, and the adjacent frame at station 767 had a 1.3-inch-long crack at the same stringer location. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frame and adjacent lap joint. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and result in 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. Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions

(f)At the applicable compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006; except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Do the applicable inspections for cracking of the upper frame to side frame splice of the fuselage by doing all of the actions, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin; except as provided by paragraphs

(h)and

(i)of this AD. Do all applicable specified and corrective actions before further flight in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles until the terminating action in paragraph

(j)of this AD has been accomplished.

(g)Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006, specifies a compliance time relative to the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(h)If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD.

(i)For airplanes on which a repair has been previously accomplished: If, during accomplishment of the corrective actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, it is found that the repair was not done per the Boeing 737-100/200 Structural Repair Manual

(SRM)53-10-4, Figure 1, or the Boeing 737-300/400/500 SRM 53-00-07, Figure 201, Repair 1, as applicable; before further flight, repair in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD. Optional Terminating Action

(j)Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph

(f)of this AD for the repaired or modified frames only.

(1)Accomplishment of the repair specified in Part 3, or the preventive modification specified in Part 4, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, including Appendices A through X inclusive, dated January 19, 2006.

(2)Accomplishment of the repair or the preventive modification specified in Boeing Message M-7200-02-01294, dated August 20, 2002. 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.

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

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

(l)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1261, dated January 19, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

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

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

(AG)Plenary Meeting; Additions to the List of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC)AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)is publishing this final rule to amend the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)to implement the understandings reached at the April 2008 plenary meeting of the Australia Group (AG). This final rule amends the EAR to reflect changes to the AG “Control List of Biological Agents” that the countries participating in the AG adopted at the plenary meeting. Specifically, this rule revises the Commerce Control List

(CCL)entry that controls animal pathogens on the AG “Control List of Biological Agents” by revising the listing for avian influenza viruses to replace the description of highly pathogenic avian influenza

(HPAI)with new HPAI language that is based on the definition currently used by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). This rule also amends the provisions in the EAR that describe the advance notification and annual report requirements for exports of Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC)Schedule 1 chemicals and the End-Use Certificate requirement for certain exports of CWC Schedule 3 chemicals by updating the fax number and address for submitting these documents to BIS. Finally, this rule amends the list of countries that currently are States Parties to the CWC by adding “Congo (Republic of the)” and “Guinea-Bissau,”which recently became States Parties. As a result of this change, the CW (Chemical Weapons) license requirements and policies in the EAR that apply to these two countries now conform with those applicable to other CWC States Parties. DATES: This rule is effective July 8, 2008. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AE36, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: publiccomments@bis.doc.gov.* Include “RIN 0694-AE36” 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:* Willard Fisher, 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-AE36. Send comments regarding this collection of information, 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 Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 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-AE36)—all comments on the latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Scott, Director, Chemical and Biological Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone:

(202)482-3343. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS)is amending the Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)to implement the understandings reached at the annual plenary meeting of the Australia Group

(AG)that was held in Paris on April 14-18, 2008. The Australia Group is a multilateral forum, consisting of 40 participating countries, that maintains export controls on a list of chemicals, biological agents, and related equipment and technology that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons program. The AG periodically reviews items on its control list to enhance the effectiveness of participating governments' national controls and to achieve greater harmonization among these controls. The understandings reached at the April 2008 annual plenary meeting included a decision to update the AG “Control List of Biological Agents” by revising the listing for avian influenza viruses to replace the description of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), which was based on a European Community

(EC)directive (Directive 92/40/EC) that was repealed, effective July 1, 2007. This decision allows AG participating countries to adopt HPAI language that is based on the definition currently used by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The latter is the standard definition used by international reference laboratories for the identification and characterization of HPAI. The OIE criteria for classifying an avian influenza

(AI)virus as a highly pathogenic avian influenza

(HPAI)virus are described in the “Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals” (5th edition, 2004; *see* Chapter 2.7.12: Avian Influenza; last modified May 2005). This final rule amends the EAR to implement the AG decision concerning the characterization of HPAI viruses by revising the listing for avian influenza viruses in Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C352.a.2 on the Commerce Control List

(CCL)(Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) to conform with the OIE definition of HPAI. As a result of the changes made by this rule, an avian influenza

(AI)virus will be considered to be highly pathogenic if the virus:

(1)Has an intravenous pathogenicity index

(IVPI)in 6-week-old chickens greater than 1.2; or

(2)causes at least 75 percent mortality in 4- to 8-week-old chickens infected intravenously. In addition, this rule adds a new Note to ECCN 1C352.a.2 that identifies certain AI viruses of the H5 or H7 subtype that are controlled under this ECCN even though they do not possess either of the two HPAI characteristics described above. This new Note requires that AI viruses of the H5 or H7 subtype that do not have either of these characteristics be sequenced to determine whether multiple basic amino acids are present at the cleavage site of the haemagglutinin molecule (HA0). If the test indicates that the amino acid motif is similar to that observed for other HPAI isolates, then the isolate being tested should be considered as HPAI and the virus is controlled under ECCN 1C352.a.2. This rule also amends Section 745.1(a)(2) and (b)(3) of the EAR, which describe the advance notification and annual report requirements that apply to exports of Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC)Schedule 1 chemicals, by updating the fax number and address for submitting these documents to BIS. In addition, this rule amends Section 745.2(a)(2) of the EAR, which describes the End-Use Certificate requirement that applies to certain exports of CWC Schedule 3 chemicals (i.e., exports to States not Party to the CWC), by updating the fax number and address for submitting this document to BIS. Finally, this rule amends Supplement No. 2 to Part 745 of the EAR (titled “States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction”) by adding “Congo (Republic of the)” and “Guinea-Bissau,” which became States Parties to the CWC on January 3, 2008, and June 19, 2008, respectively. As a result of this change, the CW (Chemical Weapons) license requirements and policies that apply to these two countries now conform with those applicable to other CWC States Parties, as described in Section 742.18 of the EAR. 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. Saving Clause Shipments of items removed from eligibility for export or reexport under a license exception or without a license (i.e., under the designator “NLR”) as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on August 7, 2008, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previously applicable license exception or without a license

(NLR)so long as they are exported or reexported before August 22, 2008. Any such items not actually exported or reexported before midnight, on August 22, 2008, require a license in accordance with this regulation. “Deemed” exports of “technology” and “source code” removed from eligibility for export under a license exception or without a license (under the designator “NLR”) as a result of this regulatory action may continue to be made under the previously available license exception or without a license

(NLR)before August 22, 2008. Beginning at midnight on August 22, 2008, such “technology” and “source code” may no longer be released, without a license, to a foreign national subject to the “deemed” export controls in the EAR when a license would be required to the home country of the foreign national in accordance with this regulation. Rulemaking Requirements 1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 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 of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, as indicated in the “ ADDRESSES ” section of this rule. 3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. 4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable for those changes to Export Control Classification Number

(ECCN)1C352.a.2 on the Commerce Control List (Supplement No. 1 to part 774) and to Supplement No. 2 to part 745, because those revisions involve a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable for those changes to sections 745.1(a)(2) and (b)(3) and 745.2(a)(2), because those revisions relate to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 745 Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 15 CFR Part 774 Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, parts 745 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774) are amended as follows: PART 745—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 745 continues to read as follows: Authority: 50 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; Notice of November 8, 2007, 72 FR 63963 (November 13, 2007). 2. Section 745.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(3) to read as follows: § 745.1 Advance notification and annual report of all exports of Schedule 1 chemicals to other States Parties.

(a)* * *

(2)Send the notification either by fax to

(b)* * *

(3)Send the report either by fax to

(a)* * *

(2)Submit a copy of the End-Use Certificate, no later than 7 days after the date of export, either by fax to

(202)482-1731 or by mail or courier delivery to the following address: Information Technology Team, Treaty Compliance Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4515, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Attn: “CWC End-Use Certificate Report”. Supplement No. 2 to Part 745—[Amended] 4. Supplement No. 2 to Part 745 is amended: a. By revising the undesignated center heading “List of States Parties as of August 1, 2007” to read “List of States Parties as of July 1, 2008”; and b. By adding, in alphabetical order, the countries “Congo (Republic of the)” and “Guinea-Bissau”. PART 774—[AMENDED] 5. 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). Supplement No. 1 to Part 774—[Amended] 6. In Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 (the Commerce Control List), Category 1—Materials, Chemicals, “Microorganisms” & “Toxins,” ECCN 1C352 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) under *“Items”* in the List of Items Controlled to read as follows: 1C352 Animal pathogens, as follows (see List of Items Controlled). List of Items Controlled *Unit:* * * * *Related Controls:* * * * *Related Definitions:* * * * *Items:* a. * * * a.2. Avian influenza

(AI)viruses identified as having high pathogenicity (HP), as follows: a.2.a. AI viruses that have an intravenous pathogenicity index

(IVPI)in 6-week-old chickens greater than 1.2; or a.2.b. AI viruses that cause at least 75% mortality in 4- to 8-week-old chickens infected intravenously. Note: Avian influenza

(AI)viruses of the H5 or H7 subtype that do not have either of the characteristics described in 1C352.a.2 (specifically, 1C352.a.2.a or a.2.b) should be sequenced to determine whether multiple basic amino acids are present at the cleavage site of the haemagglutinin molecule (HA0). If the amino acid motif is similar to that observed for other HPAI isolates, then the isolate being tested should be considered as HPAI and the virus is controlled under 1C352.a.2. Dated: July 1, 2008. Eileen M. Albanese, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15386 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9411] RIN 1545-BE78 Elections Regarding Start-up Expenditures, Corporation Organizational Expenditures, and Partnership Organizational Expenses AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final and temporary regulations relating to elections to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), organizational expenditures of corporations under section 248, and organizational expenses of partnerships under section 709. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 amended these three sections of the Code to provide similar rules for deducting these types of expenses that are paid or incurred after October 22, 2004. The regulations affect taxpayers that pay or incur these expenses and provide guidance on how to elect to deduct the expenses in accordance with the new rules. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the **Federal Register** . DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on July 8, 2008. *Applicability Dates:* For dates of applicability, see §§ 1.195-1T(d), 1.248-1T(f), and 1.709-1T(b)(5). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grace Matuszeski,

(202)622-7900 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document amends the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under sections 195, 248, and 709 of the Code to reflect amendments made by section 902 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418) (the Act). The amendments made by section 902 of the Act are effective for amounts paid or incurred after October 22, 2004, the date of the enactment of the Act. As amended by section 902(a) of the Act, section 195(b) allows an electing taxpayer to deduct, in the taxable year in which the taxpayer begins an active trade or business, an amount equal to the lesser of

(1)the amount of the start-up expenditures that relate to the active trade or business, or

(2)$5,000, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the start-up expenditures exceed $50,000. The remainder of the start-up expenditures is deductible ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the active trade or business begins. As amended by section 902(b) of the Act, section 248(a) allows an electing corporation to deduct, in the taxable year in which the corporation begins business, an amount equal to the lesser of

(1)the amount of the organizational expenditures of the corporation, or

(2)$5,000, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the organizational expenditures exceed $50,000. The remainder of the organizational expenditures is deductible ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the corporation begins business. As amended by section 902(c) of the Act, section 709(b) allows an electing partnership to deduct, in the taxable year in which the partnership begins business, an amount equal to the lesser of

(1)the amount of the organizational expenses of the partnership, or

(2)$5,000, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the organizational expenses exceed $50,000. The remainder of the organizational expenses is deductible ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the partnership begins business. Explanation of Provisions This Treasury decision revises the regulations under sections 195, 248, and 709 to reflect the amendments made by section 902 of the Act. This Treasury decision also updates the manner in which taxpayers elect to deduct costs under sections 195, 248, and 709. Under these regulations, taxpayers are no longer required to file a separate election statement to deduct costs under sections 195, 248, and 709. The manner of filing these elections is changed because of various electronic return filing initiatives and in acknowledgment that the vast majority of taxpayers that incur costs that may be deducted under sections 195, 248, and 709 elect to deduct those costs. The change also reduces the administrative burden of making the elections. The temporary regulations under sections 195, 248, and 709 apply to expenditures paid or incurred after September 8, 2008. However, taxpayers may apply all the provisions of these regulations to expenditures paid or incurred under sections 195, 248, and 709 after October 22, 2004, provided the period of limitations on assessment of tax has not expired for the year the election under section 195, 248, or 709 is deemed made. Expenditures paid or incurred on or before October 22, 2004, may be amortized over a period of not less than 60 months as provided for under prior law. Temporary Regulations Under Section 195 Section 195(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided in section 195, no deduction shall be allowed for start-up expenditures. Under section 195(b)(1), a taxpayer may elect to deduct start-up expenditures as provided in sections 195(b)(1)(A) and (B). Section 195(b)(1)(A) allows an electing taxpayer to deduct start-up expenditures in the year in which the active trade or business to which the expenditures relate begins. The amount that may be deducted under section 195(b)(1)(A) in that year is the lesser of the amount of the start-up expenditures or $5,000, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the start-up expenditures exceed $50,000. Any start-up expenditures that are not deductible under section 195(b)(1)(A) may be deducted by the taxpayer under section 195(b)(1)(B) ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the active trade or business begins. All start-up expenditures incurred by the taxpayer that relate to the active trade or business are considered in determining whether the start-up expenditures exceed $50,000, including expenditures incurred on or before October 22, 2004. For start-up expenditures as defined in section 195(c)(1) paid or incurred after September 8, 2008, the temporary regulations under section 195 provide that a taxpayer is deemed to make an election under section 195(b) to deduct start-up expenditures for the taxable year in which the active trade or business to which the expenditures relate begins. Therefore, under the temporary regulations a taxpayer is no longer required to attach a statement to the return or specifically identify the deducted amount as start-up expenditures for the election under section 195(b) to be effective. A taxpayer may choose to forgo the deemed election by clearly electing to capitalize its start-up expenditures on a timely filed Federal income tax return (including extensions) for the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins. The election to capitalize start-up expenditures is made in accordance with the form and instructions used by the taxpayer to file its Federal income tax return. An election either to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195(b) or to capitalize start-up expenditures is irrevocable and applies to all start-up expenditures of the taxpayer that are related to the active trade or business. In general, a change in the characterization of an item as a start-up expenditure, or a change in the determination of the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins, will be treated as a change in method of accounting with a section 481(a) adjustment. Temporary Regulations Under Section 248 In general, the organizational expenditures of a corporation are not deductible except as provided in section 248. Under section 248(a), a corporation may elect to deduct organizational expenditures as provided in sections 248(a)(1)(A) and (B). Section 248(a)(1)(A) allows an electing corporation to deduct organizational expenditures in the year in which the corporation begins business. The amount that may be deducted under section 248(a)(1)(A) in that year is the lesser of the amount of the organizational expenditures of the corporation or $5,000, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the organizational expenditures exceed $50,000. Any organizational expenditures that are not deductible under section 248(a)(1)(A) may be deducted by the corporation under section 248(a)(1)(B) ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the corporation begins business. All organizational expenditures incurred by the corporation are considered in determining whether the organizational expenditures exceed $50,000, including expenditures incurred on or before October 22, 2004. For organizational expenditures as defined in section 248(b) and § 1.248-1(b) paid or incurred after September 8, 2008, the temporary regulations under section 248 provide that a corporation is deemed to make an election under section 248(a) to deduct organizational expenditures for the taxable year in which the corporation begins business. Therefore, under the temporary regulations a corporation is no longer required to attach a statement to the return or specifically identify the deducted amount as organizational expenditures for the election under section 248(a) to be effective. A corporation may choose to forgo the deemed election by clearly electing to capitalize its organizational expenditures on a timely filed Federal income tax return (including extensions) for the taxable year in which the corporation begins business. The election to capitalize organizational expenditures is made in accordance with the form and instructions used by the corporation to file its Federal income tax return. An election either to deduct organizational expenditures under section 248(a) or to capitalize organizational expenditures is irrevocable and applies to all organizational expenditures of the corporation. In general, a change in the characterization of an item as an organizational expenditure, or a change in the determination of the taxable year in which the corporation begins business, will be treated as a change in method of accounting with a section 481(a) adjustment. Temporary Regulations Under Section 709 Section 709(a) provides that, except as otherwise provided in section 709(b), no deduction shall be allowed for organizational expenses. Under section 709(b), a partnership may elect to deduct organizational expenses as provided in section 709(b)(1)(A) and (B). Section 709(b)(1)(A) allows an electing partnership to deduct organizational expenses in the year in which the partnership begins business. The amount that may be deducted under section 709(b)(1)(A) in that year is the lesser of the amount of the organizational expenses of the partnership or $5,000, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the organizational expenses exceed $50,000. Any organizational expenses that are not deductible under section 709(b)(1)(A) may be deducted by the partnership under section 709(b)(1)(B) ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the partnership begins business. All organizational expenses incurred by the partnership are considered in determining whether the organizational expenses exceed $50,000, including expenses incurred on or before October 22, 2004. For organizational expenses as defined in section 709(b)(3) and § 1.709-2(a) paid or incurred after September 8, 2008, the temporary regulations under section 709 provide that a partnership is deemed to make an election under section 709(b) to deduct organizational expenses for the taxable year in which the partnership begins business. Therefore, under the temporary regulations a partnership is no longer required to attach a statement to the return or specifically identify the deducted amount as organizational expenses for the election under section 709(b) to be effective. A partnership may choose to forgo the deemed election by clearly electing to capitalize its organizational expenses on a timely filed Federal income tax return (including extensions) for the taxable year in which the partnership begins business. The election to capitalize organizational expenses is made in accordance with the form and instructions used by the partnership to file its Federal income tax return. An election either to deduct organizational expenses under section 709(b) or to capitalize organizational expenses is irrevocable and applies to all organizational expenses of the partnership. In general, a change in the characterization of an item as an organizational expense, or a change in the determination of the taxable year in which the partnership begins business, will be treated as a change in method of accounting with a section 481(a) adjustment. Examples The temporary regulations under sections 195, 248, and 709 contain examples that illustrate how the election is made, how to calculate the amount of the deduction that is allowed in the year in which the election is made, and how to effect subsequent redeterminations in the characterization of an item or the year in which the trade or business begins. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Please refer to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** for applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these final and temporary regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Grace Matuszeski of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.195-1 is revised to read as follows: § 1.195-1 Election to amortize start-up expenditures. [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.195-1T. **Par. 3.** Section 1.195-1T is added to read as follows: § 1.195-1T Election to amortize start-up expenditures (temporary).

(a)*In general.* Under section 195(b), a taxpayer may elect to amortize start-up expenditures as defined in section 195(c)(1). In the taxable year in which a taxpayer begins an active trade or business, an electing taxpayer may deduct an amount equal to the lesser of the amount of the start-up expenditures that relate to the active trade or business, or $5,000 (reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the start-up expenditures exceed $50,000). The remainder of the start-up expenditures is deductible ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the active trade or business begins. All start-up expenditures that relate to the active trade or business are considered in determining whether the start-up expenditures exceed $50,000, including expenditures incurred on or before October 22, 2004.

(b)*Time and manner of making election.* A taxpayer is deemed to have made an election under section 195(b) to amortize start-up expenditures as defined in section 195(c)(1) for the taxable year in which the active trade or business to which the expenditures relate begins. A taxpayer may choose to forgo the deemed election by clearly electing to capitalize its start-up expenditures on a timely filed Federal income tax return (including extensions) for the taxable year in which the active trade or business to which the expenditures relate begins. The election either to amortize start-up expenditures under section 195(b) or to capitalize start-up expenditures is irrevocable and applies to all start-up expenditures that are related to the active trade or business. A change in the characterization of an item as a start-up expenditure is a change in method of accounting to which sections 446 and 481(a) apply if the taxpayer treated the item consistently for two or more taxable years. A change in the determination of the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins also is treated as a change in method of accounting if the taxpayer amortized start-up expenditures for two or more taxable years.

(c)*Examples.* The following examples illustrate the application of this section: Example 1. *Expenditures of $5,000 or less.* Corporation X, a calendar year taxpayer, incurs $3,000 of start-up expenditures after October 22, 2004, that relate to an active trade or business that begins on July 1, 2009. Under paragraph

(b)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195(b) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct the entire amount of the start-up expenditures in 2009, the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins. Example 2. *Expenditures of more than $5,000 but less than or equal to $50,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Corporation X incurs start-up expenditures of $41,000. Under paragraph

(b)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195(b) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct $5,000 and the portion of the remaining $36,000 that is allocable to July through December of 2009 ($36,000/180 × 6 = $1,200) in 2009, the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins. Example 3. *Subsequent change in the characterization of an item.* The facts are the same as in *Example 2* except that Corporation X determines in 2011 that Corporation X incurred $10,000 for an additional start-up expenditure erroneously deducted in 2009 under section 162 as a business expense. Under paragraph

(b)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to amortize start-up expenditures under section 195(b) in 2009, including the additional $10,000 of start-up expenditures. Corporation X is using an impermissible method of accounting for the additional $10,000 of start-up expenditures and must change its method under § 1.446-1(e) and the applicable general administrative procedures in effect in 2011. Example 4. *Subsequent redetermination of year in which business begins.* The facts are the same as in *Example 2* except that, in 2010, Corporation X deducted the start-up expenditures allocable to January through December of 2010 ($36,000/180 × 12 = $2,400). In addition, in 2011 it is determined that Corporation X actually began business in 2010. Under paragraph

(b)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195(b) in 2010. Corporation X impermissibly deducted start-up expenditures in 2009, and incorrectly determined the amount of start-up expenditures deducted in 2010. Therefore, Corporation X is using an impermissible method of accounting for the start-up expenditures and must change its method under § 1.446-1(e) and the applicable general administrative procedures in effect in 2011. Example 5. *Expenditures of more than $50,000 but less than or equal to $55,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Corporation X incurs start-up expenditures of $54,500. Under paragraph

(b)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195(b) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct $500 ($5,000−4,500) and the portion of the remaining $54,000 that is allocable to July through December of 2009 ($54,000/180 × 6 = $1,800) in 2009, the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins. Example 6. *Expenditures of more than $55,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Corporation X incurs start-up expenditures of $450,000. Under paragraph

(b)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct start-up expenditures under section 195(b) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct the amounts allocable to July through December of 2009 ($450,000/180 × 6 = $15,000) in 2009, the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins.

(d)*Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to start-up expenditures paid or incurred after September 8, 2008. However, taxpayers may apply all the provisions of this section to start-up expenditures paid or incurred after October 22, 2004, provided that the period of limitations on assessment of tax for the year the election under paragraph

(b)of this section is deemed made has not expired. Otherwise, for start-up expenditures paid or incurred prior to September 8, 2008, see § 1.195-1 in effect prior to that date (§ 1.195-1 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 2008).

(e)*Expiration date.* This section expires on July 7, 2011. **Par. 4.** Section 1.248-1 is amended by revising paragraphs

(a)and (c), and adding paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and

(g)to read as follows: § 1.248-1 Election to amortize organizational expenditures.

(a)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.248-1T(a).

(c)through

(g)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.248-1T(c) through (g). **Par. 5.** Section 1.248-1T is added to read as follows: § 1.248-1T Election to amortize organizational expenditures (temporary).

(a)*In general.* Under section 248(a), a corporation may elect to amortize organizational expenditures as defined in section 248(b) and § 1.248-1(b). In the taxable year in which a corporation begins business, an electing corporation may deduct an amount equal to the lesser of the amount of the organizational expenditures of the corporation, or $5,000 (reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the organizational expenditures exceed $50,000). The remainder of the organizational expenditures is deducted ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the corporation begins business. All organizational expenditures of the corporation are considered in determining whether the organizational expenditures exceed $50,000, including expenditures incurred on or before October 22, 2004.

(b)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.248-1(b).

(c)*Time and manner of making election.* A corporation is deemed to have made an election under section 248(a) to amortize organizational expenditures as defined in section 248(b) and § 1.248-1(b) for the taxable year in which the corporation begins business. A corporation may choose to forgo the deemed election by clearly electing to capitalize its organizational expenditures on a timely filed Federal income tax return (including extensions) for the taxable year in which the corporation begins business. The election either to amortize organizational expenditures under section 248(a) or to capitalize organizational expenditures is irrevocable and applies to all organizational expenditures of the corporation. A change in the characterization of an item as an organizational expenditure is a change in method of accounting to which sections 446 and 481(a) apply if the corporation treated the item consistently for two or more taxable years. A change in the determination of the taxable year in which the corporation begins business also is treated as a change in method of accounting if the corporation amortized organizational expenditures for two or more taxable years.

(d)*Determination of when corporation begins business.* The deduction allowed under section 248 must be spread over a period beginning with the month in which the corporation begins business. The determination of the date the corporation begins business presents a question of fact which must be determined in each case in light of all the circumstances of the particular case. The words “begins business,” however, do not have the same meaning as “in existence.” Ordinarily, a corporation begins business when it starts the business operations for which it was organized; a corporation comes into existence on the date of its incorporation. Mere organizational activities, such as the obtaining of the corporate charter, are not alone sufficient to show the beginning of business. If the activities of the corporation have advanced to the extent necessary to establish the nature of its business operations, however, it will be deemed to have begun business. For example, the acquisition of operating assets which are necessary to the type of business contemplated may constitute the beginning of business.

(e)*Examples.* The following examples illustrate the application of this section: Example 1. *Expenditures of $5,000 or less.* Corporation X, a calendar year taxpayer, incurs $3,000 of organizational expenditures after October 22, 2004, and begins business on July 1, 2009. Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenditures under section 248(a) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct the entire amount of the organizational expenditures in 2009, the taxable year in which Corporation X begins business. Example 2. *Expenditures of more than $5,000 but less than or equal to $50,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Corporation X incurs organizational expenditures of $41,000. Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenditures under section 248(a) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct $5,000 and the portion of the remaining $36,000 that is allocable to July through December of 2009 ($36,000/180 × 6 = $1,200) in 2009, the taxable year in which Corporation X begins business. Example 3. *Subsequent change in the characterization of an item.* The facts are the same as in *Example 2* except that Corporation X determines in 2011 that Corporation X incurred $10,000 for an additional organizational expenditure erroneously deducted in 2009 under section 162 as a business expense. Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to amortize organizational expenditures under section 248(a) in 2009, including the additional $10,000 of organizational expenditures. Corporation X is using an impermissible method of accounting for the additional $10,000 of organizational expenditures and must change its method under § 1.446-1(e) and the applicable general administrative procedures in effect in 2011. Example 4. *Subsequent redetermination of year in which business begins.* The facts are the same as in *Example 2* except that, in 2010, Corporation X deducted the organizational expenditures allocable to January through December of 2010 ($36,000/180 × 12 = $2,400). In addition, in 2011 it is determined that Corporation X actually began business in 2010. Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenditures under section 248(a) in 2010. Corporation X impermissibly deducted organizational expenditures in 2009, and incorrectly determined the amount of organizational expenditures deducted in 2010. Therefore, Corporation X is using an impermissible method of accounting for the organizational expenditures and must change its method under § 1.446-1(e) and the applicable general administrative procedures in effect in 2011. Example 5. *Expenditures of more than $50,000 but less than or equal to $55,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Corporation X incurs organizational expenditures of $54,500. Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenditures under section 248(a) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct $500 ($5,000−4,500) and the portion of the remaining $54,000 that is allocable to July through December of 2009 ($54,000/180 × 6 = $1,800) in 2009, the taxable year in which Corporation X begins business. Example 6. *Expenditures of more than $55,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Corporation X incurs organizational expenditures of $450,000. Under paragraph

(c)of this section, Corporation X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenditures under section 248(a) in 2009. Therefore, Corporation X may deduct the amounts allocable to July through December of 2009 ($450,000/180 × 6 = $15,000) in 2009, the taxable year in which Corporation X begins business.

(f)*Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to organizational expenditures paid or incurred after September 8, 2008. However, taxpayers may apply all the provisions of this section to organizational expenditures paid or incurred after October 22, 2004, provided that the period of limitations on assessment of tax for the year the election under paragraph

(c)of this section is deemed made has not expired. Otherwise, for organizational expenditures paid or incurred prior to September 8, 2008, see § 1.248-1 in effect prior to that date (§ 1.248-1 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 2008).

(g)*Expiration date.* This section expires on *July 7, 2011.* **Par. 6.** Section 1.709-1 is amended by revising paragraph

(b)and removing paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 1.709-1 Treatment of organization and syndication costs.

(b)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.709-1T. **Par. 7.** Section 1.709-1T is added to read as follows: § 1.709-1T Treatment of organizational expenses and syndication costs (temporary).

(a)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.709-1(a).

(b)*Election to amortize organizational expenses* —(1) *In general.* Under section 709(b), a partnership may elect to amortize organizational expenses as defined in section 709(b)(3) and § 1.709-2(a). In the taxable year in which a partnership begins business, an electing partnership may deduct an amount equal to the lesser of the amount of the organizational expenses of the partnership, or $5,000 (reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the organizational expenses exceed $50,000). The remainder of the organizational expenses is deductible ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the partnership begins business. All organizational expenses of the partnership are considered in determining whether the organizational expenses exceed $50,000, including expenses incurred on or before October 22, 2004.

(2)*Time and manner of making election.* A partnership is deemed to have made an election under section 709(b) to amortize organizational expenses as defined in section 709(b)(3) and § 1.709-2(a) for the taxable year in which the partnership begins business. A partnership may choose to forgo the deemed election by clearly electing to capitalize its organizational expenses on a timely filed Federal income tax return (including extensions) for the taxable year in which the partnership begins business. The election either to amortize organizational expenses under section 709(b) or to capitalize organizational expenses is irrevocable and applies to all organizational expenses of the partnership. A change in the characterization of an item as an organizational expense is a change in method of accounting to which sections 446 and 481(a) apply if the partnership treated the item consistently for two or more taxable years. A change in the determination of the taxable year in which the partnership begins business also is treated as a change in method of accounting if the partnership amortized organizational expenses for two or more taxable years.

(3)*Liquidation of partnership.* If there is a winding up and complete liquidation of the partnership prior to the end of the amortization period, the unamortized amount of organizational expenses is a partnership deduction in its final taxable year to the extent provided under section 165 (relating to losses). However, there is no partnership deduction with respect to its capitalized syndication expenses.

(4)*Examples.* The following examples illustrate the application of this section: Example 1. *Expenditures of $5,000 or less.* Partnership X, a calendar year taxpayer, incurs $3,000 of organizational expenses after October 22, 2004, and begins business on July 1, 2009. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Partnership X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenses under section 709(b) in 2009. Therefore, Partnership X may deduct the entire amount of the organizational expenses in 2009, the taxable year in which Partnership X begins business. Example 2. *Expenditures of more than $5,000 but less than or equal to $50,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Partnership X incurs organizational expenses of $41,000. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Partnership X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenses under section 709(b) in 2009. Therefore, Partnership X may deduct $5,000 and the portion of the remaining $36,000 that is allocable to July through December of 2009 ($36,000/180 × 6 = $1,200) in 2009, the taxable year in which Partnership X begins business. Example 3. *Subsequent change in the characterization of an item.* The facts are the same as in *Example 2* except that Partnership X realizes in 2011 that Partnership X incurred $10,000 for an additional organizational expense erroneously deducted in 2009 under section 162 as a business expense. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Partnership X is deemed to have elected to amortize organizational expenses under section 709(b) in 2009, including the additional $10,000 of organizational expenses. Partnership X is using an impermissible method of accounting for the additional $10,000 of organizational expenses and must change its method under § 1.446-1(e) and the applicable general administrative procedures in effect in 2011. Example 4. *Subsequent redetermination of year in which business begins.* The facts are the same as in *Example 2* except that, in 2010, Partnership X deducted the organizational expenses allocable to January through December of 2010 ($36,000/180 × 12 = $2,400). In addition, in 2011 it is determined that Partnership X actually began business in 2010. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Partnership X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenses under section 709(b) in 2010. Partnership X impermissibly deducted organizational expenses in 2009, and incorrectly determined the amount of organizational expenses deducted in 2010. Therefore, Partnership X is using an impermissible method of accounting for the organizational expenses and must change its method under § 1.446-1(e) and the applicable general administrative procedures in effect in 2011. Example 5. *Expenditures of more than $50,000 but less than or equal to $55,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Partnership X incurs organizational expenses of $54,500. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Partnership X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenses under section 709(b) in 2009. Therefore, Partnership X may deduct $500 ($5,000−4,500) and the portion of the remaining $54,000 that is allocable to July through December of 2009 ($54,000/180 × 6 = $1,800) in 2009, the taxable year in which Partnership X begins business. Example 6. *Expenditures of more than $55,000.* The facts are the same as in *Example 1* except that Partnership X incurs organizational expenses of $450,000. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Partnership X is deemed to have elected to deduct organizational expenses under section 709(b) in 2009. Therefore, Partnership X may deduct the amounts allocable to July through December of 2009 ($450,000/180 × 6 = $15,000) in 2009, the taxable year in which Partnership X begins business.

(5)*Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to organizational expenses paid or incurred after September 8, 2008. However, taxpayers may apply all the provisions of this section to organizational expenses paid or incurred after October 22, 2004, provided that the period of limitations on assessment of tax for the year the election under paragraph (b)(2) of this section is deemed made has not expired. Otherwise, for organizational expenses paid or incurred prior to September 8, 2008, see § 1.709-1 in effect prior to that date (§ 1.709-1 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 2008).

(6)*Expiration date.* This section expires on July 7, 2011. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: June 30, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-15459 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [TD 9410] RIN 1545-BF54 Change to Office to Which Notices of Nonjudicial Sale and Requests for Return of Wrongfully Levied Property Must Be Sent AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations relating to the discharge of liens under section 7425 and return of wrongfully levied upon property under section 6343 of the Internal Revenue Code

(Code)of 1986. These regulations revise regulations currently published under sections 7425 and 6343. These regulations clarify that such notices and claims should be sent to the IRS official and office specified in the relevant IRS publications. The regulations will affect parties seeking to provide the IRS with notice of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and parties making administrative requests for return of wrongfully levied property. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective on July 8, 2008. *Applicability Date:* See §§ 301.6343-2 and 301.6343-3. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin M. Ferguson,

(202)622-3630 (not a toll-free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This document contains final regulations amending the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) relating to the giving of notice of nonjudicial sales under section 7425(b) of the Code. This document also contains final regulations amending the Procedure and Administration Regulations relating to requests for return of wrongfully levied property under section 6343(b) of the Code. On July 20, 2007, temporary regulations (TD 9344) were published in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 39737). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-148951-05) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the **Federal Register** on the same day (72 FR 39771). No written comments were received from the public in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested, scheduled or held. The proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision, and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed. For notices of nonjudicial foreclosure sale under section 7425(b) and requests for return of property wrongfully levied upon under section 6343(b), the existing regulations direct the notices and requests to be sent to the “district director (marked for the attention of the Chief, Special Procedures Staff).” The offices of the district director and Special Procedures were eliminated by the IRS reorganization implemented pursuant to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-206 (RRA 1998), creating uncertainty as to the timeliness of notices and requests under these provisions. Comments on the Proposed Regulations None. Modifications of the Proposed Regulations None, other than minor grammatical revisions. Effective/Applicability Date These regulations are effective on July 8, 2008. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal author of these regulations is Robin M. Ferguson, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows: PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * **Par. 2.** Section 301.6343-2 is amended as follows: 1. Paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and

(b)introductory text are revised. 2. Paragraph

(e)is revised. The revisions read as follows: § 301.6343-2 Return of wrongfully levied upon property.

(a)*Return of property* —(1) *General rule.* If the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)determines that property has been wrongfully levied upon, the IRS may return—

(b)*Request for return of property.* A written request for the return of property wrongfully levied upon must be given to the IRS official, office and address specified in IRS Publication 4528, “Making an Administrative Wrongful Levy Claim Under Internal Revenue Code

(IRC)Section 6343(b),” or any successor publication. The relevant IRS publications may be downloaded from the IRS internet site at *http://www.irs.gov.* Under this section, a request for the return of property wrongfully levied upon is not effective if it is given to an office other than the office listed in the relevant publication. The written request must contain the following information—

(e)*Effective/applicability date.* These regulations are effective on July 8, 2008. § 301.6343-2T [Removed]. **Par. 3.** Section 301.6343-2T is removed. **Par. 4.** Section 301.7425-3 is amended as follows: 1. Paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4) are revised. 2. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) *Example 2* is amended by removing the language “district director” and adding the language “IRS” in its place wherever it appears. 3. Paragraph

(e)is revised. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 301.7425-3 Discharge of liens; special rules.

(a)*Notice of sale requirements* —(1) *In general.* Except in the case of the sale of perishable goods described in paragraph

(c)of this section, a notice (as described in paragraph

(d)of this section) of a nonjudicial sale shall be given, in writing by registered or certified mail or by personal service, not less than 25 days prior to the date of sale (determined under the provisions of § 301.7425-2(b)), to the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)official, office and address specified in IRS Publication 786, “Instructions for Preparing a Notice of Nonjudicial Sale of Property and Application for Consent to Sale,” or any successor publication. The relevant IRS publications may be downloaded from the IRS Internet site at *http://www.irs.gov.* Under this section, a notice of sale is not effective if it is given to an office other than the office listed in the relevant publication. The provisions of sections 7502 (relating to timely mailing treated as timely filing) and 7503 (relating to time for performance of acts where the last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday) apply in the case of notices required to be made under this paragraph.

(b)*Consent to sale—*

(1)*In general.* Notwithstanding the notice of sale provisions of paragraph

(a)of this section, a nonjudicial sale of property shall discharge or divest the property of the lien and title of the United States if the IRS consents to the sale of the property free of the lien or title. Pursuant to section 7425(c)(2), where adequate protection is afforded the lien or title of the United States, the IRS may, in its discretion, consent with respect to the sale of property in appropriate cases. Such consent shall be effective only if given in writing and shall be subject to such limitations and conditions as the IRS may require. However, the IRS may not consent to a sale of property under this section after the date of sale, as determined under § 301.7425-2(b). For provisions relating to the authority of the IRS to release a lien or discharge property subject to a tax lien, see section 6325 and the section 6325 regulations.

(2)*Application for consent.* Any person desiring the IRS's consent to sell property free of a tax lien or a title derived from the enforcement of a tax lien of the United States in the property shall submit to the IRS, at the office and address specified in the relevant IRS publications, a written application, in triplicate, declaring that it is made under penalties of perjury, and requesting that such consent be given. The application shall contain the information required in the case of a notice of sale, as set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and, in addition, shall contain a statement of the reasons why the consent is desired.

(c)*Sale of perishable goods—*

(1)*In general.* A notice (as described in paragraph

(d)of this section) of a nonjudicial sale of perishable goods (as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) shall be given in writing, by registered or certified mail or delivered by personal service, at any time before the sale, to the IRS official and office specified in the relevant IRS publications, at the address specified in such publications. Under this section, a notice of sale is not effective if it is given to an office other than the office listed in the relevant publication. If a notice of a nonjudicial sale is timely given in the manner described in this paragraph, the nonjudicial sale shall discharge or divest the tax lien, or a title derived from the enforcement of a tax lien, of the United States in the property. The provisions of sections 7502 (relating to timely mailing treated as timely filing) and 7503 (relating to time for performance of acts where the last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday) apply in the case of notices required to be made under this paragraph. The seller of the perishable goods shall hold the proceeds (exclusive of costs) of the sale as a fund, for not less than 30 days after the date of the sale, subject to the liens and claims of the United States, in the same manner and with the same priority as the liens and claims of the United States had with respect to the property sold. If the seller fails to hold the proceeds of the sale in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and if the IRS asserts a claim to the proceeds within 30 days after the date of sale, the seller shall be personally liable to the United States for an amount equal to the value of the interest of the United States in the fund. However, even if the proceeds of the sale are not so held by the seller, but all the other provisions of this paragraph are satisfied, the buyer of the property at the sale takes the property free of the liens and claims of the United States. In the event of a postponement of the scheduled sale of perishable goods, the seller is not required to notify the IRS of the postponement. For provisions relating to the authority of the IRS to release a lien or discharge property subject to a tax lien, see section 6325 and the regulations.

(d)* * *

(2)*Inadequate notice.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, a notice of sale described in paragraph

(a)of this section that does not contain the information described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be considered inadequate by the IRS. If the IRS determines that the notice is inadequate, the IRS will give written notification of the items of information which are inadequate to the person who submitted the notice. A notice of sale that does not contain the name and address of the person submitting such notice shall be considered to be inadequate for all purposes without notification of any specific inadequacy. In any case where a notice of sale does not contain the information required under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section with respect to a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, the IRS may give written notification of such omission without specification of any other inadequacy and such notice of sale shall be considered inadequate for all purposes. In the event the IRS gives notification that the notice of sale is inadequate, a notice complying with the provisions of this section (including the requirement that the notice be given not less than 25 days prior to the sale in the case of a notice described in paragraph

(a)of this section) must be given. However, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in such a case the IRS may, in its discretion, consent to the sale of the property free of the lien or title of the United States even though notice of the sale is given less than 25 days prior to the sale. In any case where the person who submitted a timely notice, which indicates his name and address, does not receive more than 5 days prior to the date of sale written notification from the IRS that the notice is inadequate, the notice shall be considered adequate for purposes of this section.

(3)*Acknowledgment of notice.* If a notice of sale described in paragraph

(a)or

(c)of this section is submitted in duplicate to the IRS with a written request that receipt of the notice be acknowledged and returned to the person giving the notice, this request will be honored by the IRS. The acknowledgment by the IRS will indicate the date and time of the receipt of the notice.

(4)*Disclosure of adequacy of notice.* The IRS is authorized to disclose, to any person who has a proper interest, whether an adequate notice of sale was given under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Any person desiring this information should submit to the IRS a written request that clearly describes the property sold or to be sold, identifies the applicable notice of lien, gives the reasons for requesting the information, and states the name and address of the person making the request. The request should be submitted to the IRS official, office and address specified in IRS Publication 4235, “Technical Services (Advisory) Group Addresses,” or any successor publication. The relevant IRS publications may be downloaded from the IRS Internet site at *http://www.irs.gov.*

(e)*Effective/applicability date.* These regulations are effective on July 8, 2008. § 301.7425-3T [Removed]. **Par. 5.** Section 301.7425-3T is removed. Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: June 30, 2008. Eric Solomon, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E8-15460 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 938 [PA-151-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2008-0013] Pennsylvania Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior. ACTION: Final rule; disapproval of amendment and reinstatement of a required amendment SUMMARY: We are disapproving two changes to the Pennsylvania regulatory program (the “Pennsylvania program”) regulations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act) which were previously submitted under amendment PA-147-FOR. While we approved the other proposed changes related to PA-147-FOR, we deferred our decision on two changes pertaining to the discontinuation of a $100 per acre reclamation fee pending the outcome of litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the matter of *Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs Inc. et al.* v. *Norton, (PFSC* v. *Norton)* No. 06-1780. We now have the U.S. Court of Appeals decision before us. The decision sets aside our October 7, 2003, final rule removing a required amendment pertaining to the Pennsylvania alternative bonding system. Therefore, we are now disapproving the two changes pertaining to the discontinuation of the fee. We are also reinstating a required amendment that has been modified to be consistent with the court's decision. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Rieger, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Division, Telephone:

(717)782-4036, e-mail: grieger@osmre.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program II. Submission of the Original Amendment III. Court Decision IV. OSM's Findings V. Summary and Disposition of Comments VI. OSM's Decision VII. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of the Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982. From 1982 until 2001, Pennsylvania's bonding program for surface coal mines, coal refuse reprocessing operations and coal preparation plants, was funded under an Alternative Bonding System (ABS), which included a central pool of money (Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund) used for reclamation. This pool was funded in part by a per-acre reclamation fee paid by operators of permitted sites and supplemented by site bonds posted by those operators for each mine site. This is the reclamation fee, established at 25 Pa. Code 86.17(e), that Pennsylvania proposed to eliminate. In 1991, our oversight activities determined that Pennsylvania's ABS contained unfunded reclamation liabilities for backfilling, grading, and revegetation and we determined that the ABS was financially incapable of abating or treating pollutional discharges from bond forfeiture sites under its purview. As a result, on May 31, 1991, we imposed the required amendment codified at 30 CFR 938.16(h). That amendment required Pennsylvania to demonstrate that the revenues generated by its collection of the reclamation fee would assure that its Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund

(Fund)could be operated in a manner that would meet the ABS requirements contained in 30 CFR 800.11(e). After a decade of trying to address the problems with the ABS, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) terminated the ABS in 2001 and began converting active surface coal mining permits to a Conventional Bonding System

(CBS)or “full-cost” bonding program. This CBS requires a permittee to post a site specific bond in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated costs to complete reclamation in the event of bond forfeiture. OSM published a final rule on October 7, 2003, removing the required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(h) on the basis that the conversion from an ABS to a CBS rendered the requirement to comply with 30 CFR 800.11(e) moot. Subsequent to these OSM actions, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, *Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs Inc. et al.* v. *Norton No. 1:03-CV-2220.* It was that case, while initially dismissed by the district court, that ultimately leads to the Third Circuit decision that brings us to this action today. You can find background information on the Pennsylvania program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the July 30, 1982, **Federal Register** (47 FR 33050). You can also find later actions concerning Pennsylvania's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15 and 938.16. II. Submission of the Original Amendment By letter dated May 23, 2006, the PADEP sent us an amendment to revise its program regulations at 25 Pennsylvania Code (Pa. Code) (Administrative Record No. PA 793.11). Pennsylvania sent the amendment in response to five required program amendments. The proposed amendment also included four additional changes which were made at Pennsylvania's own initiative. Two of the four additional changes that Pennsylvania proposed concerned money received from reclamation fees intended to supplement a reclamation bond pool. Because PADEP revised its bonding requirements and is now requiring all mine permits to post a full cost reclamation bond, the PADEP contended that there was no longer a basis for maintaining the reclamation fee. Pennsylvania submitted a request to discontinue the collection of the $100 per acre reclamation fee authorized under 25 Pa. Code 86.17(e) under Amendment No. PA-147-FOR by adding the following sentence “This fee shall not be required after (effective date of this rulemaking).” Pennsylvania also amended 25 Pa. Code by removing section 86.283(c) since it referenced the reclamation fee in relation to remining areas for mine operators approved to participate in the financial guarantees program. PADEP submitted the amendment to create consistency with the proposed amendment to 86.17(e) that would delete the reclamation fee. While we approved the other requested changes related to PA-147-FOR, we deferred our decision on the two changes pertaining to the discontinuation of a $100 per acre reclamation fee. We deferred our decision because Pennsylvania's decision to eliminate its ABS in favor of a CBS had been challenged, and the matter was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in *Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs* v. *Kempthorne* , No. 06-1780. ( *PFSC* v. *Kempthorne* ). Specifically, if the Third Circuit were to rule that Pennsylvania could not discontinue funding for surface coal mining sites where operators defaulted on their reclamation obligations before the conversion to a CBS, and for sites with operators who subsequently default due to failure to obtain adequate full-cost bonds, then OSM could not approve the proposed elimination of the reclamation fee. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, we deferred our decision on this proposed change until final disposition of the *PFSC* v. *Kempthorne* matter. III. Court Decision On August 2, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided *PFSC* v. *Kempthorne* , 497 F.3d 337 (3rd Cir. 2007). At issue, relevant to this notice, was whether OSM properly terminated the requirement that Pennsylvania demonstrate that its Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund was in compliance with 30 CFR 800.11(e). The Third Circuit concluded: “while it is true that the ‘ABS Fund' continues to exist in name, it no longer operates as an ABS, that is, as a bond pool, to provide liability coverage for new and existing mining sites.” 497 F.3d at 349. However, the Court went on to “conclude that 800.11(e) continues to apply to sites forfeited prior to the CBS conversion.” *Id.* at 353. In commenting further on 30 CFR 800.11(e), the Court stated “The plain language of this provision requires that Pennsylvania demonstrate adequate funding for mine discharge abatement and treatment at all ABS forfeiture sites.” *Id.* at 354. IV. OSM's Findings PADEP had proposed elimination of the $100 per acre fee given that the ABS had been terminated and active mine sites permitted under the ABS had been converted to full-cost bonding. However, elimination of the $100 per acre fee would essentially eliminate income to the Fund, thus reducing the amount of funds available for the reclamation of the forfeited sites bonded under the Fund. Therefore, an approval of the proposed change at 25 Pa Code 86.17(e) or the deletion of 25 Pa Code 86.283(c) would be in conflict with the Court's decision. Also, because the Third Circuit decision set aside our 2003 removal of the required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(h), we are now reinstating an amendment “(h),” which has been modified to be consistent with the Court's decision. V. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments We asked for public comments on the original amendment (Administrative Record No. PA 793.17). We received comments from one organization, the Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFUTURE) (Administrative Record No. PA 793.18). PennFUTURE objected to the portion of the program amendment that would discontinue the collection of Pennsylvania's reclamation fee at 25 Pa. Code 86.17(e), and requested that we defer our decision on this proposed change until such time as the matter of *PFSC* v. *Kempthorne* is decided. As we noted above, we deferred our decision with respect to the proposed amendment to 86.17(e), as well as on an ancillary proposed change at 86.283(c). With the recent Court decision, we have now concluded that we cannot approve the requested changes. Federal Agency Comments Under Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the original amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Pennsylvania program (Administrative Record No. PA 793.12). The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), District 1, responded (Administrative Record No. PA 793.13) and stated that it did not have any comments or concerns. The Natural Resources Conservation Service responded (Administrative Record No. PA 793.14) and stated that it did not have any comments. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)Concurrence and Comments Under Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* ) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ). None of the revisions that Pennsylvania proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. On June 6, 2006, we requested comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. PA 793.15). The EPA, Region III, responded and stated that it did not identify any inconsistencies with the Clean Water Act or any other statutes or regulations under its jurisdiction. VI. OSM's Decision Based on the above findings, we disapprove the amendment Pennsylvania sent to us on May 23, 2006, pertaining to the termination of the collection of the reclamation fee at 25 Pa. Code 86.17(e) and 86.283(c). Because we are disapproving the elimination of the fee, Pennsylvania must continue to collect this fee in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 86.17(e). For the reasons stated above, we are also disapproving the proposed deletion of 25 Pa Code 86.283(c). We are also reinstating a required amendment formerly codified at 30 CFR 938.16(h), and modifying it to be consistent with the court's decision. As reinstated, 30 CFR 938.16(h) will provide as follows: By September 8, 2008, Pennsylvania must either submit information sufficient to demonstrate that revenues to the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund

(a)and

(b)of that Section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Government In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal program involving Indian lands. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is

(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not constitute a major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 8.4.A). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State amendment that is the subject of this rule is based on counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;

(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State, or local government agencies; and

(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: June 23, 2008. Thomas D. Shope, Regional Director, Appalachian Region. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 938 is amended as set forth below: PART 938—PENNSYLVANIA 1. The authority citation for part 938 continues to read as follows: Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* 2. Section 938.12 is amended by adding paragraph

(e)to read as follows: § 938.12 State statutory, regulatory, and proposed program amendment provisions not approved.

(e)We are not approving the following amendments that Pennsylvania submitted on May 23, 2006:

(1)At 25 Pa. Code 86.17(e), the sentence “This fee shall not be required after (effective date of this rulemaking).”

(2)At 25 Pa. Code 86.283(c), the proposed deletion of the entire subsection. 3. Section 938.16 is amended by adding paragraph

(h)to read as follows: § 938.16 Required regulatory program amendments.

(h)By September 8, 2008, Pennsylvania must either submit information sufficient to demonstrate that revenues to the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund

(Fund)are adequate to fulfill outstanding reclamation obligations at forfeited sites for which the Fund provides partial bond coverage under 30 CFR 800.11(e), or amend its program to otherwise meet those outstanding financial obligations at these forfeited sites. [FR Doc. E8-15432 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS NEW HAMPSHIRE (SSN 778) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply. DATES: This rule is effective July 8, 2008 and is applicable beginning June 27, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander M. Robb Hyde, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone: 202-685-5040. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS NEW HAMPSHIRE (SSN 778) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the height placement of the masthead light above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 2(k), pertaining to the height and relative positions of the anchor lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(b), pertaining to the location of the sidelights; and Rule 21(c), pertaining to the location and arc of visibility of the sternlight. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements. Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 2. Section 706.2 is amended as follows: A. In Table One by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS NEW HAMPSHIRE (SSN 778); and B. In Table Three by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS NEW HAMPSHIRE (SSN 778): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table One Vessel Number Distance in meters of forward masthead light below minimum required height. § 2(a)(i), Annex I * * * * * * * USS NEW HAMPSHIRE SSN 778 2.90 * * * * * * * Table Three Vessel No. Masthead lights arc of visibility; rule 21(a) Side lights arc of visibility; rule 21(b) Stern light arc of visibility; rule 21(c) Side lights distance inboard of ship's sides in meters 3(b) annex 1 Stern light, distance forward of stern in meters; rule 21(c) Forward anchor light, height above hull in meters; 2(K) annex 1 Anchor lights relationship of aft light to forward light in meters 2(K) annex 1 * * * * * * * USS NEW HAMPSHIRE SSN 778 Meets Requirement Meets Requirement 205.6° 4.37 11.05 2.8 0.30 below. * * * * * * * Approved: June 27, 2008. M. Robb Hyde, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). [FR Doc. E8-15401 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0198] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Stonington Maine, Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay, ME AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby establishes Crotch Island Special Anchorage in Stonington, Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide 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 Deer Island Thorofare, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. DATES: This rule is effective August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (USCG-2007-0198), and are available for inspection or copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (DPW), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02110, Telephone

(617)223-8355 or e-mail at *John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On February 14, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Anchorage Regulations; Stonington Maine, Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay, ME” in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 8633). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by creating Crotch Island Special Anchorage area to aid the Town of Stonington in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations. The Coast Guard is designating the special anchorage area in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. Under that statute, vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The Coast Guard has defined the anchorage area contained herein with the advice and consent of the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review 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. This finding is based on the fact that this rule conforms to the changing needs of the Town of Stonington, the changing needs of recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of the available navigable water. This rule is in the interest of safe navigation, protection of moored vessels, protection of the Town of Stonington and the marine environment. 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. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact John J. Mauro, at the address listed in ADDRESSES above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 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). 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 would 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 will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 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 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 considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(f), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” and a final “Environmental Analysis Check List” are available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES . This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would establish one special anchorage area. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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 and 2071; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.4 by adding paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 110.4 Penobscot Bay, Maine.

(c)*Stonington Harbor, Deer Island Thorofare* .

(1)*Crotch Island.* All of the waters bound by the following points beginning at the northeast shore of Crotch Island located at: latitude 44°08′51.0″ N, longitude 068°40′06.0″ W; thence southerly along the shoreline to latitude 44°08′36.0″ N, longitude 068°40′07.02″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′36.0″ N, longitude 068°40′04.02″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′46.98″ N, longitude 068°40′00.0″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′55.02″ N, longitude 068°39′49.02″ W; thence to latitude 44°08′54.0″ N, longitude 068°40′06.0″ W thence back to origin. DATUM: NAD 83.

(2)[Reserved]. Note to § 110.4(c): An ordinance of the Town of Stonington, Maine requires the approval of the Stonington Harbor Master for the location and type of moorings placed in these special anchorage areas. All anchoring in the areas are under the supervision of the Stonington Harbor Master or other such authority as may be designated by the authorities of the Town of Stonington, Maine. All moorings are to be so placed that no moored vessel will extend beyond the limit of the area. Dated: June 23, 2008. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-15311 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. USCG-2007-0199] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Regulations; Weymouth Fore River, Weymouth, MA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard hereby establishes Gull Point

(PT)Special Anchorage area in the Weymouth Fore River, Weymouth, Massachusetts. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation and provide 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 in the Weymouth Fore River, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of vessel traffic and commerce. DATES: This rule is effective August 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (USCG-2007-0199), and are available for inspection or copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Telephone

(617)223-8355, e-mail: *John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On February 14, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Anchorage Regulations; Weymouth, Massachusetts, Weymouth Fore River” in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 8635). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose The rule is intended to reduce the risk of vessel collisions by decreasing activity in nearby over-crowded mooring areas or anchorages in Weymouth, Massachusetts. The Coast Guard is designating the special anchorage area in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. Under that statute, vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The Coast Guard has defined the anchorage area contained herein with the advice and consent of the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders. Regulatory Planning and Review 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. This finding is based on the fact that this rule conforms to the changing needs of the Town of Weymouth, the changing needs of recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and makes the best use of the available navigable water. This rule is in the interest of safe navigation, protection of moored vessels, protection of the Town of Weymouth and the marine environment. 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. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact John J. Mauro, at the address listed in ADDRESSES above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 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). 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 would 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 will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 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 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 considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(f), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” and a final “Environmental Analysis Check List” are available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES . This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would establish one special anchorage area List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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 and 2071; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.30, by redesignating paragraph

(k)as paragraph (k)(1) and adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows: § 110.30 Boston Harbor, Mass., and adjacent waters.

(k)* * *

(2)*Weymouth Fore River, in the vicinity of Gull Point (PT).* All of the waters bound by the following points beginning at latitude 42°15′05″ N, longitude 70°57′26″ W; thence to latitude 42°15′00″ N, longitude 70°57′26″ W; thence to latitude 42°15′15″ N, longitude 70°56′50″ W; thence to latitude 42°15′18″ N, longitude 70°56′50″ W; thence to the point of the beginning. DATUM: NAD 83. Note to paragraph (k)(2): The area is principally for use by recreational craft. All anchoring in the area shall be under the supervision of the local harbor master or such other authority as may be designated by the authorities of the Town of Weymouth, Massachusetts. All moorings are to be so placed that no moored vessel will extend beyond the limit of the anchorage area. Dated: June 23, 2008. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E8-15312 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0952; FRL-8688-1] Direct Final Approval of Revised Municipal Waste Combustor State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's State Plan to control air pollutants from large Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC). The Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM)submitted the State Plan on August 24, 2007. The revisions are consistent with Emission Guideline

(EG)amendments promulgated by EPA on May 10, 2006. This approval means that EPA finds that the State Plan amendments meet applicable Clean Air Act

(Act)requirements for large MWCs for which construction commenced on or before September 20, 1994. Once effective, this approval also makes the amended State Plan Federally enforceable. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 8, 2008, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 7, 2008. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0952, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail: nash.carlton@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(312)886-6030. 4. *Mail:* Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. *Hand Delivery:* Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Integrated Air Toxics Section, Air Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0952. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *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 *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *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 *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *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 *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)353-1151 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-1151, *sieffert.margaret@epa.gov* or Michele Palmer, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (ML-10C), Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-3646, *palmer.michele@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Did Indiana Submit to EPA? II. What Are the Revised MWC State Plan Requirements? III. What Is the Revised Indiana MWC Plan? IV. Does the Revised MWC State Plan Meet Federal Requirements? V. What Action Is EPA Taking? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Did Indiana Submit to EPA? On August 24, 2007, Indiana submitted amendments to its State Plan to meet Federal rules applicable to large MWCs, which EPA implements under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. Section 129(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA conduct a five-year review of the emissions guidelines and, if appropriate, revise them. These amendments are intended to revise the State plan approved by EPA on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 62928). If this approval becomes effective, it will make the amended Indiana MWC rule consistent with the amended Federal EG amendments promulgated on May 10, 2006. There is currently one large MWC plant in Indiana covered by the revised rule, Covanta Indianapolis, Inc. This facility has three subject units. II. What Are the Revised MWC State Plan Requirements? On May 10, 2006 (71 FR 27324), EPA published a final rule amending the emissions guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, Subpart Cb, to reflect the actual performance levels being achieved by existing MWC units. This rulemaking included revised limits for dioxin/furan (only for units equipped with electrostatic precipitators), mercury, cadmium, lead, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides (for some types of units). It also contained revisions to the compliance testing provisions to require increased data availability from continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). CEMS are required to generate at least ninety-five percent (95%) data availability on a calendar year basis and at least ninety percent (90%) data availability on a calendar quarter basis. The compliance testing provisions have also been revised to allow the optional use of CEMS to monitor particulate matter and mercury. Other revisions include: • Operator stand-in provisions to clarify how long a shift supervisor is allowed to be off site when a provisionally certified control room operator is standing in; • An eight-hour block average for measuring activated carbon injection rate; • A provision for waiver of operating parameter limits during the mercury performance test and for two weeks preceding the test, as is already allowed for dioxin testing; • A revision to relative accuracy criterion for sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide CEMS; • Flexibility to the annual compliance testing schedule so that a facility tests once per calendar year, but no less than nine months and no more than 15 months since the previous test; • Allowing use of parametric monitoring limits from an exceptionally well-operated MWC unit to be applied to all identical units at the same plant site without retesting for dioxin; • The option of monitoring the activated carbon injection pressure or equivalent parameter; and • Clarifying the exclusion of monitoring data from compliance calculations. III. What Is the Revised Indiana MWC Plan? Indiana adopted the revised State Plan to implement the EG revisions published by the EPA on May 10, 2006, in accordance with procedures established in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. The submission only addresses those portions of the State Plan that have been updated since EPA's November 18, 1999, approval of Indiana's previous MWC rules. It is comprised of revisions to 326 IAC 11-7, which establishes emission standards for existing MWC units consistent with the Federal rules. These became effective in Indiana on August 9, 2007. The remainder of the changes are accomplished by Indiana having incorporated by reference the May 10, 2006 Federal requirements. This became Federally effective when EPA approved the State's most recent updates to the Code of Federal Regulations under 326 IAC 1-1-3 (the definition of “References to Code of Federal Regulations”). See 73 FR 14389 (March 18, 2008). In addition, Indiana made the emission limits in 326 IAC 11-7 apply upon the effective date of the rule, August 9, 2007, which is two years earlier than required by the EPA's MWC revisions. The Revised Plan adopts the same emission limits that are in the Federal emission guidelines. Accordingly, the emission limits for particulate matter (PM), cadmium, lead, and mercury are as follows: Pollutant Emission limits Particulate matter 25 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). 1, 4 Opacity 10% based on a 6-minute average. Cadmium 0.035 mg/dscm. 1 Lead 0.400 mg/dscm. 1 Mercury 0.050 mg/dscm; or 15% of the potential mercury emissions concentration. 3, 4 Sulfur dioxide 29 parts per million by volume (ppmv); or 20% of the potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration. 3, 5 Hydrogen chloride 29 ppmv; or 5% of the potential hydrogen chloride emissions concentration. 2, 3 Organic emission (expressed as total mass dioxins/furans) 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) total mass. 1 Nitrogen oxides 205 ppmv. 2 Carbon monoxide 5 100 ppmv 5 (based on a 4-hour block averaging time). 1 Corrected to seven percent (7%) oxygen. 2 Corrected to seven percent (7%) oxygen, dry basis. 3 Whichever concentration is less stringent. 4 Corrected to seven percent (7%) oxygen, dry basis, calculated as a 24-hour daily geometric mean. 5 Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of oxygen concentration, corrected to seven percent (7%) oxygen, dry basis, calculated as an arithmetic mean. IV. Does the Revised MWC State Plan Meet Federal Requirements? IDEM held public hearings for the preliminary adoption of the State rule on December 6, 2006, and for final adoption on February 7, 2007. The State did not receive any comments during the public comment period or at the first and second public hearings. For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that the revised Plan meets all applicable Federal requirements. V. What Action Is EPA Taking? We are approving, through direct final rulemaking action, Indiana's revised State Plan for large MWCs, submitted to EPA on August 24, 2007. This plan revision approval excludes certain authorities retained by EPA, as stated in 40 CFR 60.30b(b) and 60.50b(n). We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 8, 2008 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 7, 2008. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 8, 2008. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal Standard. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Municipal waste combustors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 24, 2008. Richard C. Karl, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows: PART 62—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart P—Indiana 2. Sections 62.3650, 62.3651, and 62.3652 to subpart P are revised to read as follows: § 62.3650 Identification of plan.

(a)On September 30, 1999, Indiana submitted the State Plan for implementing the Federal Large Municipal Waste Combustor

(MWC)Emission Guidelines to control emissions from existing MWCs with the capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste. The enforceable mechanism for this plan is a State rule codified in 326 Indiana Administrative Code

(IAC)11-7. The rule was adopted on September 2, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State on January 18, 1999, and became effective on February 17, 1999. The rule was published in the Indiana State Register on March 1, 1999 (22 IR 1967).

(b)On August 24, 2007, Indiana submitted a revised State plan as required by sections 129(a)(5) and 129 (b)(2) of the Act. The revised (Phase II) State plan implements amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb published in the **Federal Register** on May 10, 2006. The Phase II State plan includes an amendment to State Rule 326 IAC 11-7, that was adopted by Indiana on February 7, 2007. § 62.3651 Identification of sources. The plan applies to all existing municipal waste combustors with the capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste, and for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before September 20, 1994, as consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. Subject facilities include the Indianapolis Resource Recovery Facility in Indianapolis, Indiana. § 62.3652 Effective date. The effective date of Phase I of the approval of the Indiana State Plan for municipal waste combustors with the capacity to combust greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste was January 18, 2000. Phase II of the plan revision is effective September 8, 2008. [FR Doc. E8-15349 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 08-138] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission clarifies its restrictions on the use of consumer or call database information by telecommunications relay service

(TRS)providers to contact consumers of interstate TRS. The Commission concludes that TRS providers may use information derived from a consumer or call database to contact TRS users for purposes related to the handling of relay calls, as well as to comply with a federal statute, Commission rule or order, a court order, or other lawful authority. DATES: Effective May 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Boehley, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Policy Division at

(202)418-7395 (voice), or e-mail at *lisa.boehley@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities* , Declaratory Ruling ( *Consumer Contacts Declaratory Ruling* ), FCC 08-138, adopted and released May 28, 2008, in CG Docket No. 03-123. FCC 08-138 addresses issues arising from the Commission's *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities* , Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling ( *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* ), CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 07-186, published at 73 FR 3197, January 17, 2008. The full text of FCC 08-138 will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. FCC 08-138 also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site *http://www.bcpiweb.com* or by calling 1-800-378-3160. To request a copy of FCC 08-138 in an accessible format for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). FCC 08-138 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format

(PDF)at: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html* . Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis FCC 08-138 does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, 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 106-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Synopsis Background 1. In the *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* , the Commission reiterated that providers seeking compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund “may not offer consumers financial or other tangible incentives, either directly or indirectly, to make relay calls.” *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* at paragraph 92. The Commission also specified in greater detail the nature and types of incentive programs that are impermissible, clarified that “a financial incentive program is not permissible even in circumstances where the benefit goes to a third party,” and stated that providers cannot condition the ongoing use or possession of TRS equipment (or the receipt of upgraded equipment) on a consumer's call volume. *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* at paragraphs 92 to 94. In addition, the *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* addressed in greater detail providers' use of consumer or call databases to contact consumers for lobbying or to attempt to influence their use of relay. *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* at paragraphs 95 and 96. In particular, it prohibited providers from using a consumer or call database to contact TRS users “for lobbying or any other purpose,” and prohibited providers from using a consumer or call database to “contact TRS users or to in any way attempt to affect or influence, directly or indirectly, their use of relay service.” *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* at paragraphs 95 and 96. 2. Following release of the *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* , several TRS providers, in filings with the Commission, asserted that the restrictions contained in paragraphs 95 and 96 of that ruling violate the First Amendment rights of TRS providers. In January 2008, Sorenson Communications, Inc. (Sorenson), filed a Petition for Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit seeking judicial review of this language, and sought a stay from the Commission pending resolution of its Petition for Review. *Sorenson Communications* v. *FCC* , Petition for Review, Nos. 08-9503 and 08-9507 (10th Circuit January 16, 2008 (08-9503) and January 23, 2008 (08-9507)); Sorenson Communications, Inc., *Request for Stay Pending Judicial Review* , CG Docket No. 03-123 (January 28, 2008) ( *Stay Request* ). Among other things, Sorenson contended that the restrictions contained in paragraphs 95 and 96 are unconstitutionally vague, violate the First Amendment rights of TRS providers, and are procedurally deficient under the Administrative Procedure Act. 3. In order to give the Commission sufficient time to consider the arguments presented by Sorenson and others, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau

(CGB)issued an order on February 7, 2008, granting a 90-day stay of paragraphs 95 and 96. *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Request for Stay Pending Judicial Review* , CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 1705 (CGB Feb. 7, 2008), published at 73 FR 21843, April 23, 2008. The stay granted by that order was subsequently extended until May 28, 2008. *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Request for Stay Pending Judicial Review* , CG Docket No. 03-123, Order, DA 08-1079 (CGB May 6, 2008). Discussion 4. In FCC 08-138, the Commission states that reasonable restrictions on the use of consumer information are necessary to prevent improper marketing practices and to ensure that interstate TRS funds are used for their intended purpose. However, to address concerns that the restrictions set forth in paragraphs 95 and 96 of the *2007 TRS Cost Recovery Declaratory Ruling* may be overly broad and may have the unintended effect of preventing TRS providers from communicating important information, including critical public safety information, to TRS users relating to the handling of relay calls, the Commission clarifies the restrictions in those paragraphs. The Commission also provides examples of the circumstances in which providers may use consumer or call databases to contact relay users. 5. First, the Commission clarifies that the language in paragraphs 95 and 96 restricting the use of consumer information “for any * * * purpose,” does not prohibit contacts by TRS providers with TRS users that are directly related to the handling of TRS calls. Consistent with the Commission's TRS rules and orders, providers may use information derived from a consumer or call database established in conjunction with Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 225, to contact users as long as it is for purposes *related to the handling of relay calls* . Therefore, for example, a provider reasonably could directly contact relay users (using such customer information) in order to inform users of a service outage, respond to a consumer's call for emergency services, assist in the delivery of emergency services, and provide technical support for TRS products or services used by the consumer. Providers also may use customer data, for example, to comply with a federal statute, a Commission rule or order, a court order, or other lawful authority. The Commission emphasizes that any such direct contacts with relay users must be informational in nature and must relate to the provision of, or the consumer's use of, TRS. 6. On the other hand, providers may not contact consumers and offer financial or other incentives to generate additional or longer calls that can be billed to the Fund because such contacts are not directly related to the purpose of handling relay calls. The Commission may revisit these determinations if specific facts are brought to its attention suggesting an abuse of this proviso. 7. The Commission declines to address the request that it explicitly allow the disclosure of user-specific information to third parties designated by the user and information to protect TRS users from fraudulent, abusive or unlawful use of TRS. The Commission believes this issue would be better addressed in the context of its consideration of whether, and if so, how to extend customer proprietary network information

(CPNI)requirements to TRS providers. *See Telecommunications Relay Services And Speech-To-Speech Services For Individuals With Hearing And Speech Disabilities, E911 Requirements For IP-Enabled Service Providers* , CG 03-123, WC 05-196, Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5255 (Mar. 19, 2008) ( *Interim Emergency Call Handling Order* ), published at 73 FR 21252, April 21, 2008; *Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks to Refresh Record on Assigning Internet Protocol (IP)-Based Telecommunications Relay Service

(TRS)Users Ten-Digit Telephone Numbers Linked to North American Numbering Plan

(NANP)and Related Issues* , CG Docket No. 03-123, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4727 (Mar. 19, 2008) ( *IP-Based Relay Numbering PN* ), published at 73 FR 16304, March 27, 2008, (seeking to refresh the record on the proposed establishment of a global database of proxy telephone numbers for Internet-based TRS users and on consumer protection issues related to numbering, including the application of CPNI requirements). Although consumer advocates have asked the Commission to ensure that consumers be asked by providers to opt-in to receiving marketing and promotional materials before receiving such information directly from providers, the Commission defers this issue for consideration in the context of whether, and if so, how to extend CPNI requirements to TRS providers. *See Interim Emergency Call Handling Order; IP-Based Relay Numbering PN* . 8. Second, the Commission clarifies that providers may not use customer information obtained through the provision of federally-funded relay services, or use funds obtained from the Interstate TRS Fund, to engage in lobbying or advocacy activities directed at relay users. Evidence in the record shows that at least one service provider has bombarded deaf persons with material seeking to persuade them to support the provider's position on matters pending before the FCC. *See, e.g., Ex parte* letter from Jon Ziev, consumer, to Kevin Martin, FCC (dated Feb. 4, 2008) (complaining that deaf persons are being subjected to a “virtual bombardment of lobbying material”). The Commission finds that using revenue from the Interstate TRS Fund, or information obtained from end users in the provision of services supported by the Interstate TRS Fund, to engage in that kind of advocacy is inconsistent with the purpose of the fund. 9. The Commission finds that these restrictions do not run afoul of the First Amendment. In the context of a federally subsidized program, like the Interstate TRS Fund, the government “may certainly insist that these ‘public funds be spent for the purposes for which they were authorized.’ ” *United States* v. *American Library Ass'n* , 539 U.S. 194, 212

(2003)(quoting *Rust* v. *Sullivan* , 500 U.S. 173, 196 (1991)). The Interstate TRS Fund is designed to ensure that persons with hearing and speech disabilities have access to the telephone system. It was not intended to finance lobbying by TRS providers directed at end users. The Commission is under no obligation “to fund such activities out of the public fisc.” *Rust* , 500 U.S. at 198. For the same reasons, it is reasonable to restrict the use of customer information acquired in the provision of federally subsidized TRS services. A consumer or call database that a service provider develops and maintains through participation in the TRS program is inextricably tied to that federally funded program. Consequently, it is permissible to prohibit the use of that database for purposes unrelated to the handling of relay calls, such as lobbying end users to support a service provider's position before the Commission. 10. Nothing the Commission does in this document would prevent a provider from using information and funds from other sources to engage in lawful lobbying or advocacy activities. Thus, this is not an “unconstitutional conditions” case in which the government “effectively prohibit[ed] the recipient from engaging in the protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program.” *Rust* , 500 U.S. at 197; *see also Regan* v. *Taxation With Representation of Washington* , 461 U.S. 540, 544-46

(1983)(holding that tax exemption for non-profit groups that do not engage in lobbying did not violate First Amendment; and noting that a group could qualify for the tax exemption by adopting a “dual structure,” with one arm for non-lobbying activities and another for lobbying); *DKT Int'l, Inc.* v. *United States Agency for Int'l Development* , 477 F.3d 758 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to requirement that recipients of funds from AIDS/HIV education program adopt policy of opposition to prostitution and sexual trafficking, and noting that recipients could remain neutral by setting up a subsidiary that would receive the funds and adopt the policy). TRS providers are free to use those resources outside the scope of the TRS program to support their positions before the Commission. 11. Finally, the Commission reiterates that a relay provider may not use TRS consumer or call data, or similar, privately obtained information, to contact a relay user in an attempt to increase, directly or indirectly, the number or length of relay calls the user otherwise may choose to make via that provider. In this instance, because the practice itself ( *i.e.* , offering users financial or similar incentives to generate additional or longer calls that can be billed to the Fund) is prohibited by the Commission, communications with relay users in furtherance of this practice are likewise prohibited, no matter the source of the consumer or call data. Because the obligation placed on relay providers is to be available to handle calls consumers choose to make, when they choose to make them, *i.e.* , to be the “dial tone” for a consumer that uses relay to call a voice telephone user, and because consumers do not pay for this service but rather providers are compensated pursuant to Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Commission finds that these restrictions are necessary to prevent providers from improperly urging consumers to make unnecessary relay calls, and therefore to ensuring that interstate TRS funds are used for their intended purpose. By highlighting examples of both permissible and prohibited uses of consumer or call database information above, the Commission seeks to ensure that Interstate TRS funds are not used for activities that are outside the scope of, or incompatible with the purposes of, the Interstate TRS Fund, as defined by Congress. 12. The restrictions on provider-consumer contacts, as clarified in this document, apply to relay providers in connection with their offering of interstate relay services, including all Internet-based relay calls and any other relay calls that are compensated by the Interstate TRS Fund. As noted above, however, if, in the future, evidence comes to the Commission's attention of the misuse of consumer or call database information by traditional TRS providers, in connection with their offering of intrastate relay services, the Commission may revisit this issue and consider the adoption of additional restrictions at that time. Congressional Review Act The Commission will not send a copy of FCC 08-138 pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the adopted rules are rules of particular applicability. Ordering Clauses Pursuant to sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, and 225, FCC 08-138 is adopted and became effective on May 28, 2008. Federal Communications Commission. William F. Caton, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15446 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 071106671-8010-02] RIN 0648-XI92 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch for Catcher Processors Participating in the Rockfish Limited Access Fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch by catcher processors participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2008 total allowable catch

(TAC)of Pacific ocean perch allocated to catcher processors participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 5, 2008, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska

(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2008 TAC of Pacific ocean perch allocated to catcher processors participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central GOA is 1,386 metric tons

(mt)as established by the 2008 and 2009 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (73 FR 10562, February 27, 2008), and as posted as the 2008 Rockfish Program Allocations at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/goarat/default.htm* . In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2008 TAC of Pacific ocean perch allocated to catcher processors participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,386 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 0 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch by catcher processors participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and

(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific ocean perch by catcher processors participating in the rockfish limited access fishery in the Central GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 1, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: July 2, 2008. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-1418 Filed 7-2-08; 2:41 pm]

Connectionstraces to 52

Traces to 52 documents