This document corrects the title, formatting and the unintentional omission of an entry in Appendix D to Part 2 that was published as part of the final rule that amended its rules of practice on January 14, 2004 (69 FR 2182).

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to CE206.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On April 7, 2003, Cessna Aircraft Company applied for an amended type certificate for their new Cessna Model 182T to install a Garmin G1000 electronic flight instrument system with a primary flight display on the pilot side and a multifunction display in the center instrument panel. The Cessna Model 182T is single engine, high wing airplane capable of carrying four passengers.

The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that may be vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Cessna Aircraft Company must show that the Cessna Model 182T meets the following provisions or the applicable provisions in effect on the date of application for type certification of the Cessna 182T and T182T:

For the 182 Series:

Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations dated November 1, 1949, as amended by 3-1 through 3-12 and Paragraph 3.112, as amended October 1, 1959, for the Model 182E and on. In addition, effective S/N 18266591 through 18268586, 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1559, effective March 1, 1978; 14 CFR part 36, dated December 1, 1969, plus Amendments 36-1 through 36-6 for Model 182Q and on. In addition, effective S/N 18268435 through 18268486, 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1545(a), Amendment 23-23, dated December 1, 1978; exemptions, if any, and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.

For the Model T182:

Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations dated November 1, 1949, as amended by 3-1 through 3-12 and Paragraph 3.112 as amended October 1, 1959; and 14 CFR, part 23, §§ 23.901, 23.909, 23.1041, 23.1043, 23.1143, and 23.1305, dated February 1, 1965, as amended February 14, 1975; 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1559, effective March 1, 1978; 14 CFR, part 36, dated December 1, 1969; plus Amendments 36-1 through 36-10. In addition, effective S/N 18268435 through 18268541, 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1545(a); Amendment 23-23, dated December 1, 1978; exemptions, if any, and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( i.e. , 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Cessna Model 182T and T182T because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a).

The Cessna Model 182T and Model T182T will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

A Garmin G1000 electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) and a primary flight display on the pilot side as well as a multifunction display in the center of the instrument panel.

Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid-state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.

Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.

The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment.

These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:

(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined as follows:

or,

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation.

A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions.

Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna 182T and T182T airplanes. Should Cessna Aircraft Company apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature on the same type certification data sheet, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Model Cessna 182T and T182T airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2003 (68 FR 61774). That action proposed to require removing the two direct current (DC) over-voltage/feeder-fault test switches from the Test 2 Panel of the generator control unit, and follow-on actions.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comment received.

The commenter requests that a credit paragraph be added to the proposed AD for accomplishment of the specified actions per Saab Service Bulletin 340-24-023, Revision 01, dated August 24, 1995. (Revision 02 of the service bulletin was referenced in the proposed AD for accomplishment of the actions.) The FAA agrees with the commenter, as the procedures specified in Revision 01 are essentially the same as those in Revision 02. We have added a new paragraph (b) to this final rule to provide credit for actions accomplished previously per Revision 01 of the referenced service bulletin.

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 251 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take about 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $107 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $92,117, or $367 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB 340B series airplanes equipped with Hamilton Sundstrand propellers was published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2002 (67 FR 69491). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection of two remote controlled circuit breakers (RCCB), located in specific electrical compartments, to identify the part number, and replacement of the RCCBs with new RCCBs having a different part number if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.

The commenter requests that the RCCBs in the “Parts Installation” paragraph (paragraph (b) of the proposed AD) be clarified. The commenter notes that the referenced Saab service bulletin refers to two specific RCCBs while the proposed AD does not refer to any specific RCCBs. The commenter also states that the RCCBs are used in a number of different applications in SAAB Model 340B series airplanes. The commenter suggests the “Parts Installation” paragraph be revised to state: “As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an RCCB 29KFC, P/N M83383-02-07, in electrical compartment 407VU or RCCB 30KFC, P/N M83383-02-07, in electrical compartment 408VU, on any airplane with Hamilton Sundstrand propeller installed.”

The FAA agrees that the RCCBs in “Parts Installation” paragraph (b) of the final rule be clarified for the reasons stated by the commenter. Accordingly we have revised paragraph (b) of the final rule to state: “As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install P/N M83383-02-07 at RCCB 29KFC in electrical compartment 407VU or RCCB 30KFC in electrical compartment 408VU, on any airplane equipped with Hamilton Sundstrand propellers.”

The commenter requests that the RCCBs in the “Explanation of Relevant Service Information” paragraph of the proposed AD be clarified for the reasons stated in the previous request ( i.e. “Request to Clarify RCCBs in the ‘Parts Installation’ Paragraph”). The commenter suggests that the “Explanation of Relevant Service Information” paragraph be revised to read “* * * identify the part number of the RCCB 29KFC in the electrical compartment 407VU and RCCB 30KFC located in electrical compartment * * *”

We agree that the RCCBs in the “Explanation of Relevant Service Information” paragraph of the proposed AD be clarified for the reasons given by commenter. As suggested by the commenter, RCCB 29KFC and RCCB 30KFC should be specified in the “Explanation of Relevant Service Information” paragraph. However, because the preamble of the proposed AD is not repeated in the final rule, no change is necessary to the final rule.

The commenter also requests to revise the estimated number of U.S. airplanes listed in the “Cost Impact” paragraph of the proposed AD. The commenter states that the SAAB service bulletin is effective for airplanes equipped with Hamilton Sundstrand propellers only and suggests that the figure for airplanes of U.S. registry should be changed from 251 to 115 airplanes.

We agree to revise the estimated number of U.S. airplanes listed in the “Cost Impact” paragraph of the final rule. However, we do not agree that the number of airplanes be changed to 115 airplanes of U.S. registry. The total number of airplanes on the U.S. registry is 190 airplanes (128 airplanes in service and 62 airplanes out of service). We must include out of service airplanes in our estimate, as we do not know when the airplanes may be put back in service. Therefore, we have revised the estimated number of U.S. airplanes in the “Cost Impact” paragraph of the final rule to 190 airplanes of U.S. registry and have revised the cost impact figures.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

The FAA has recently reviewed the figures it has used over the past several years in calculating the economic impact of AD activity. In order to account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, has been revised to reflect this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

The FAA estimates that 190 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $12,350, or $65 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2004 (69 FR 10370). That action proposed to require an inspection of roll and pitch disconnect handles for spring forces outside limits, and adjustment of the spring force of the handles, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 3 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $780, or $260 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-18-11, amendment 39-11896 (65 FR 55450, September 14, 2000), which is applicable to certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Formerly Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.) Model 1125 Westwind Astra series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2004 (69 FR 5936). The action proposed to require replacing the low-voltage sensing relays with higher-accuracy relays, and replacing the circuit breakers of the directional gyros with circuit breakers with lower amps. After the replacements have been accomplished, the action also proposed to require inserting a new temporary revision (TR) in the Limitations section of the AFM, or removing the revision to the AFM required by the previous AD (AD 2000-18-11).

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

Operators should note that the manufacturer of the subject airplanes, previously Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., is now Gulfstream Aerospace LP. In order to meet the Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) guidelines for materials incorporated by reference, document citations must include the name of the manufacturer. Therefore, we have revised certain document citations in this final rule to include the manufacturer's current name. However, we have not revised the citation for Temporary Revision No. 9, which was previously incorporated by reference in AD 2000-18-11. The OFR guidelines require documents previously incorporated by reference to be cited exactly as they were originally approved.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 29 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 2000-18-11 take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the previously required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,885, or $65 per airplane.

The new actions that are required by this new AD will take approximately 24 work hours per airplane to accomplish for the replacements, and approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish for the revision of the AFM. The average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $1,030 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $76,995, or $2,655 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB 2000 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3043). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections of the installation of the spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies for discrepancies, and replacement with new spoilers if necessary. That action also proposed to require eventual replacement of the spoilers of the windshield wiper assemblies with new spoilers.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the one comment received.

The commenter states that the sentence in the “Discussion” section which states, “One report indicated that, after excessive vibration and subsequent separation of a windshield wiper spoiler * * *” is incorrect. The commenter asks that the sentence be changed to correctly state, “One report indicated that, excessive vibration after separation of a windshield wiper spoiler * * *” The FAA agrees with the commenter that the specified sentence was incorrect. However, the “Discussion” section is not restated in this final rule, and, therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary.

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 3 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take about 1 work hour per airplane to do the required inspection, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $195, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take about 6 work hours per airplane to do the required replacement, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will be free of charge. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,170, or $390 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2003 (68 FR 59138). That action proposed to require replacement of certain existing pitot probes with new probes.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received from a single commenter.

The commenter states that a 6-month compliance time for replacement of the pitot probes, as specified in the proposed AD, seems inadequate if flight in known icing remains permissible. The commenter asks that consideration be given to restricting flight in known icing conditions until the proposed AD is complied with, in order to avoid atmospheric conditions that may cause the problem.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter. In consideration of the commenter's request, we have taken into account the early release of a Raytheon Safety Communique and the referenced service bulletin, in addition to the degree of urgency associated with the unsafe condition. The loss of airspeed indication, mach trim warning at high altitudes in the vicinity of clouds, and autopilot disconnect, indicate that there was insufficient heating energy inside the pitot probes. The loss of airspeed indication occurred at high altitude, with high moisture content, and lasted for a short period of time. The Safety Communique that was sent to all owners of Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP airplanes outlined the problem and corrective actions to take if it occurs; which include no abrupt power or altitude changes until the condition clears. We have determined that, in light of the preventive procedures that have been issued, allowing continued flight until the affected pitot probes are replaced will not adversely affect safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The commenter states that the proposed AD uses the term “seriously misleading information” to describe the consequences following the loss of the Captain and First Officer's airspeed information. The commenter asks that the term be changed to “hazardously misleading information,” which is the generally understood description in certification terms. The commenter adds that loss of airspeed indication on both sides can be catastrophic.

We agree that the term “hazardously misleading information” is generally used throughout the aircraft industry, and that the loss of airspeed indication for both the pilot and co-pilot could present a hazard to continued safe flight, depending on when it occurs during the flight. Therefore, we have changed the statement of the unsafe condition throughout this final rule accordingly.

The commenter does not ask for a specific change to the final rule, but states that the referenced service bulletin specifies replacement of certain Rosemount pitot probes, yet the proposed AD is model specific. The commenter adds that it is not clear why the proposed AD does not cover installations on other models having the same pitot probes. The commenter notes that vulnerability to a potentially catastrophic condition could exist, and asks if the pitot probes are exclusive to airplane model.

The unsafe condition found on Raytheon Hawker Model 800XP airplanes has not been reported by owners/operators of other airplane models. The loss of airspeed indication is airplane model specific, due to different operational environments, airplane limitations, and installation locations.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously described. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 224 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 155 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take about 50 work hours per airplane to do the actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $11,425 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,274,625, or $14,675 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

On January 29, 2004, the FAA issued AD 2004-03-14, amendment 39-13458 (69 FR 6139, February 10, 2004), applicable to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, −103, −106, −201, −202, −301, −311, and −315 series airplanes, to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of certain rear spar fittings between the flex shaft of the flap secondary drive and the wing-to-fuselage structure, and corrective action if necessary. That action also provides for an optional modification of the flex shaft installation, which terminates the repetitive inspections. That action was prompted by reports of discrepancies of the rear spar fittings located between the flex shaft of the flap secondary drive and the wing-to-fuselage structure. The requirements of that AD are intended to find and fix damage and prevent subsequent failure of the rear spar fittings, which could result in loss of the wing.

Since the issuance of AD 2004-03-14, we have been advised that Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-27-83, Revision ‘A’, dated February 8, 2002, which was referenced as the appropriate source of service information for the actions specified in the existing AD, was not approved by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada. Subsequently, Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-27-83, Revision ‘A’, dated May 29, 2002; which was approved by TCCA. The procedures described in the approved service bulletin are almost identical to those described in the earlier version of the service bulletin, with the exception of minor editorial changes.

These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD revises AD 2004-03-14 to continue to require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of certain rear spar fittings between the flex shaft of the flap secondary drive and the wing-to-fuselage structure, and corrective action if necessary. This AD also continues to provide for an optional modification of the flex shaft installation, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This AD requires that the actions be done per the approved service bulletin described previously.

Since this AD action does not contain a substantive change, and because we provided notice and opportunity for prior public comment in AD 2004-03-14, there would be no interest on the part of the public in additional opportunity for comment. Further, this AD has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary, and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES . All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification ( e.g. , reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2004-NM-38-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-400 and 747-400D series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2003 (68 FR 67616). That action proposed to require a detailed inspection of the fire extinguishing system tube and clamp for correct installation or a repetitive pressure test of the fire extinguishing system tube for leakage, and corrective action, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.

One commenter requests that the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) be revised to reference Boeing Service Bulletin 747-26A2270, Revision 2, dated June 26, 2003. The commenter notes that the NPRM refers to Revision 1 of that service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed actions.

The FAA agrees. Since the issuance of the NPRM, we have reviewed and approved Revision 2 of the service bulletin. The inspection and corrective actions if necessary are essentially identical to those in Revision 1. Revision 2 revises the minimum tubing clearance in the Accomplishment Instructions for “Part 2—Tube removal and installation instructions” and Figure 3. No more work is necessary on airplanes changed by Revision 1. Therefore, we have revised this final rule to reference Revision 2 as the appropriate source of service information and revised paragraph (e) of this final rule to provide credit for accomplishing the required actions per Revision 1 before the effective date of this AD.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 416 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 44 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection or pressure test, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,860, or $65 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes on which engine oil coolers have been installed per LORI, Inc., STC SA8937SW, was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2004 (69 FR 3533). That action proposed to require an inspection or a review of the airplane maintenance records to determine the part number and serial number of each engine oil cooler, and replacement of certain engine oil coolers with reworked engine oil coolers.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the one comment received.

The commenter, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, requests changing the “AD title” of the proposed AD from “Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.)” to “LORI, Inc.,” to clarify that the proposed AD is written against supplemental type certificate (STC) SA8937SW, issued to LORI, Inc., and is not written against Bombardier airplanes.

During a teleconference between the commenter and the FAA on February 6, 2004, the commenter also expressed concern regarding the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter stated that the proposed AD, as written, would compel the issuance of a Canadian airworthiness directive because the applicability of our proposed AD identifies an airplane with a Canadian State of Design. The commenter mentioned that the applicability section may be misleading because the intent of the proposed AD is to address an unsafe condition created by the installation of the STC; the unsafe condition is not directly related to the Bombardier Model DHC-8 airplanes. The United States is the State of Design for the STC and Canada is the State of Design for the Bombardier airplanes.

We concur with the commenter's statement that the intent of this final rule is to address an unsafe condition created by STC SA8937SW, issued to LORI, Inc. We do not concur with the commenter's request to change the product identification line (“AD title”) of this final rule from “Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.)” to “LORI, Inc.” The FAA's practice regarding unsafe conditions that result from the installation of a particular component in only one particular make and model of airplane, in this case Bombardier Model DHC-8 airplanes, is to issue an AD that applies to the affected airplane model. In doing so, U.S. operators of those airplanes will be notified directly of the unsafe condition and the action required to correct it. While we assume that operators can identify the airplane models they operate, they may not be aware of specific items installed on those airplanes. Therefore, specifying the airplane models in the applicability as the subject of the AD prevents an operator's “unknowing failure to comply” with the AD.

We also recognize that an unsafe condition may exist in an item that is installed in many different airplane models. In that case, we consider it impractical to issue an AD against each airplane model; in fact, many times, the exact models and numbers of airplanes on which the item is installed may be unknown. Therefore, in those situations, we would issue an AD that would apply to the item and would indicate that the item is known to be “installed on, but not limited to,” various airplane models.

During the teleconference on February 6, 2004, we mentioned that the proposed AD, specifically the applicability section, was written per our normal practice. We also advised TCCA that the issuance of the proposed AD would not compel them to issue a Canadian airworthiness directive, but that they may choose to issue an airworthiness directive at their own discretion. We notified TCCA that we will distribute this final rule to other civil airworthiness authorities, which eliminates the need for issuance of a corresponding Canadian airworthiness directive. No change is made to this final rule regarding this issue.

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 19 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection or review of the airplane maintenance records, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,235, or $65 per airplane.

Should an operator have to replace an engine oil cooler, it will take approximately 3 work hours at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will be provided at no charge by the part manufacturer. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement on U.S. operators is estimated to be $195 per engine oil cooler.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 727 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2003 (68 FR 62408). That action proposed to require an inspection of the bolts used to attach the forward cone bolt to the engine flange to determine if the attachment bolts are either H-11 steel bolts or cadmium-plated bolts. That action also proposed to require replacement of either H-11 steel bolts or cadmium-plated bolts with new corrosion-resistant steel bolts.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to allow operators to use an alternative attachment bolt, part number (P/N) B27-53-031-111. The commenter states that, in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) SA5839NM and ST00350AT, some airplane engines are modified with a heavyweight hush kit, which uses bolts made with corrosion resistant Inconel 718. The commenter considers these bolts to satisfy the intent of the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees. The AD does not specify what action should be taken if corrosion resistant bolts, P/N B27-53-031-111, are used to attach the forward cone bolt to the engine flange. Although these attachment bolts are not part of the original type design, allowing use of these attachment bolts in accordance with STC SA5839NM and ST00350AT will eliminate the need for an alternative method of compliance to the benefit of operators and the FAA. We have revised paragraph (a) of this AD accordingly.

The same commenter also requests that the we revise the proposed AD to extend the proposed compliance time for the inspection from “18 months or 3,000 cycles, whichever is earlier,” to 24 months to allow affected operators sufficient time to perform the inspection and parts replacement during a regularly scheduled maintenance interval. The commenter states that the compliance time of the proposed AD presents an operational hardship in ensuring adequate time for the parts replacement, if necessary, during a regularly scheduled maintenance check. The commenter considers that the adoption of the proposed compliance time of 18 months would require operators to schedule special times to do the inspection, at additional expense and downtime.

We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the safety implications and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the inspection and parts replacement. In consideration of these items, as well as the unpredictable nature of stress corrosion, we have determined that an 18-month interval will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the inspection and parts replacement to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators.

One commenter, on behalf of its members, requests that we withdraw the proposed AD. The commenter states that there are no reported failures of H-11 bolts, and that Stage 3 hushkits and the retirement of some Boeing Model 727 airplanes have significantly reduced the number of affected H-11 bolts. The commenter asserts that a maintenance program for inspection of the affected bolts would be sufficient for detecting cracking.

We do not agree. Although we have not yet received any report of cracked H-11 bolts found on Boeing Model 727 airplanes, we have received a report that an operator found one cracked and two fractured H-11 bolts in the side load underwing fittings of a Model 767-200 series airplane, as stated in AD 2002-10-51. We also point out that the nature of stress corrosion is unpredictable. Furthermore, we have determined that continued service for an unsafe condition for an unknown period of time conflicts with the intent of this AD. Thus we have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Another commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to allow operators to perform repetitive inspections for cracking of H-11 bolts, instead of replacement of the H-11 bolts. The commenter states that, according to the proposed AD and the referenced service bulletin, there are no reported failures of H-11 bolts. The commenter also states that Stage 3 noise requirements and the retirement of some Boeing Model 727 airplanes have significantly reduced the number of affected H-11 bolts. The commenter asserts that the replacement of H-11 bolts should not be a mandatory replacement, and that a revision to the maintenance program for inspection of the affected bolts would be sufficient for detecting cracking.

We do not agree for the same reasons as stated above.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 1,148 Model 727 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 715 Model 727 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $139,425, or $195 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Dornier Model 328-300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2004 (69 FR 12594). That action proposed to require various one-time inspections for discrepancies of the ground spoiler assemblies and the flap of each wing, and related investigative and corrective actions.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

We have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

We estimate that 48 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $6,240, or $130 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to PW JT9D-3A, -7, -7A, -7AH, -7H, -7F, -7J, -20, and -20J turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on September 5, 2003 (68 FR 52720). That action proposed to clarify a life limit for certain part numbers of 6th stage LPT air seals, and require their removal from service before accumulating 15,000 CSN.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

There are about 1,024 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 367 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. We also estimate that it will take approximately 0.5 work hour per engine to calculate the 6th stage LPT air seal part life, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $11,928.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-NE-34-AD” in your request.

What events have caused this AD? We have received a report where the landing gear would not extend using normal operations and another report where certain electrical system components on the left generator and the center bus became inoperable.

The 200-amp current limiter, which protects the landing gear power wiring, did not operate correctly. This caused heat damage to the wiring in the landing gear power relay and surrounding electrical systems components.

The electrical system components that this condition potentially could affect include prop deice, surface deice, flaps, and left-hand windshield anti-ice.

Installing a 60-amp circuit breaker will protect the landing gear motor and associated circuitry from welding of the landing gear power relay contacts and sticking.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If not corrected, this condition could cause heat damage to the electrical wiring in and around the landing gear electrical systems components. This condition could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Raytheon Model 1900C airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 5, 2003 (68 FR 62544). The NPRM proposed to require you to replace the 200-amp electrical power current limiter in the landing gear with a 60-amp electrical power circuit breaker.

Was the public invited to comment? We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 25 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification:

Will this AD impact various entities? We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Will this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-27-AD” in your request.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39 with a proposed airworthiness directive (AD). The proposed AD applies to Honeywell TPE331-10 and -11 series turboprop engines with certain P/Ns and SNs of first stage turbine disks. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on August 8, 2003 (68 FR 47267). That action proposed to require:

• Initial and repetitive FPIs of the SNs of first stage turbine disks P/N 3101520-1, and

• Repetitive FPIs only of the disks P/N 3107079-1 listed in Table 1 of the Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) TPE331-A72-2102, dated March 28, 2002, and

• An ECI on disks that pass the FPI.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

One commenter recommends that we clarify the Relevant Service Information Section of the NPRM to state that Honeywell ASB TPE331-A72-2102, dated March 28, 2002, requires an initial FPI on disk P/Ns 3101520-1 and 3107079-1 that are not installed in engines. The commenter believes that clarification of the Relevant Service Information is required to accurately reflect the Service Bulletin information. We agree. The section that the commenter is requesting us to change is not included in a final rule so there will not be any change to that section. However, we have changed the regulatory requirements to require performing an FPI before installation into the engine.

The same commenter asks if the definition of next access includes parts before installation into the engine. The commenter states that disks that have already had an FPI and ECI may have been removed from another engine and may have accumulated substantial numbers of cycles before installation into an engine. We partially agree. We have changed the regulatory requirements to require performing an FPI of the disk before installation into an engine.

We inadvertently left out a terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements specified in this AD. We added the terminating action to the Regulatory text of the final rule.

We made an editorial change to the Summary Section to the starting location of the crack in the disk bore. In addition, we added “and damage to the airplane” to the unsafe condition statement in the Summary and in the regulatory text.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment[s] received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. That regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. The material previously was included in each individual AD. Since the material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

There are approximately 72 TPE331-10 and -11 series turboprop engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 36 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD. We estimate that it will take approximately 5 work hours per engine to perform the disk inspections during a scheduled disassembly, and 40 work hours per engine to perform the proposed disk inspections for an unscheduled disassembly. The average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $5,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this AD to U.S. operators for disassembly, inspections, and part replacement to be $105,300.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-NE-02-AD” in your request.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dornier Model 328-300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2004 (69 FR 10378). That action proposed to require modification of a certain ground cooling fan.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted on the proposed AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that 52 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take about 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the modification, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $14,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $734,760, or $14,130 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by revising AD 2000-02-07, amendment 39-11526 (65 FR 4354, January 27, 2000), which is applicable to all Bombardier Model DHC-7-100 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2004 (69 FR 4257). The action proposed to require repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections to detect cracks on the locking pin fittings of the baggage door and locking pin housings of the fuselage; repetitive detailed inspections to detect cracks of the inner door structure on all four door locking attachment fittings; and corrective actions, if necessary. In lieu of accomplishing the corrective actions, that amendment also provides a temporary option, for certain cases, for revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), and installing a placard. That action was prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions specified by that AD are intended to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the baggage door fittings and the support structure, which could result in structural failure, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane during flight.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

We have changed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this final rule to specify that the actions shall be done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, or the Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent). In addition, the de Havilland Dash 7 Maintenance Manual PSM 1-7-2 is listed as one approved method of compliance for accomplishment of the actions.

After careful review of the available data, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change described previously. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

On July 10, 2002, we issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs our airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

The changes in this action add no additional economic burden. The current costs for this AD are repeated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows:

We estimate that 32 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take about 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the inspections, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $6,240, or $195 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

On January 15, 2002, the FAA issued AD 2002-01-04, Amendment 39-12595 (67 FR 4326, January 30, 2002). That AD requires flex borescope inspections of HPT S2 NGVs installed in CF6-80E1 model turbofan engines. That AD was the result of an uncontained engine failure attributed to HPT S2 NGV distress. That condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of HPT rotor blades from HPT S2 NGV distress, which could result in an uncontained engine failure.

After AD 2002-01-04 was issued, GE received inspection findings of HPT S2 NGVs that show cracks from distress. GE and the FAA have determined that cracks from this distress could occur sooner and propagate faster than originally predicted, and have also determined that the inspection compliance intervals of AD 2002-01-04 are too long.

We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF6-80E1 S/B 72-0217, Revision 2, dated January 5, 2004, that describes procedures for initial and repetitive flex borescope inspection of HPT S2 NGV P/Ns 1647M84G09 and 1647M84G10.

Although no airplanes that are registered in the United States use these GE CF6-80E1 model turbofan engines, the possibility exists that the engine model could be used on airplanes that are registered in the United States in the future. The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other GE CF6-80E1 model turbofan engines of the same type design. We are issuing this AD to prevent blade failure from HPT S2 NGV distress, which could result in an uncontained engine failure. This AD requires flex borescope inspections of HPT S2 NGVs installed in GE CF6-80E1 model turbofan engines. These actions are required at initial and repetitive compliance intervals that are reduced from the intervals in AD 2002-01-04. You must use the service information described previously to perform the actions required by this AD.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this engine model, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary. Therefore, a situation exists that allows the immediate adoption of this regulation.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2001-NE-45-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. If a person contacts us verbally, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and your suggestions to improve the clarity of our communications with you. You may get more information about plain language at http://www.faa.gov/language and http://www/plainlanguage.gov.

You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. See ADDRESSES for the location.

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:

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

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

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2001-NE-45-AD” in your request.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Oshkosh, NE. An examination of controlled airspace for Garden County Airport revealed it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2E for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the airport reference point (ARP) to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. The examination identified discrepancies in the location of the Oshkosh nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) used in the Class E airspace legal description and also that the legal description was not in compliance with FAA Order 8260.19C, Flight Procedures and Airspace. The limit of the Class E airspace area extension should be defined as a distance from the Oshkosh NDB and the bearing corrected. This amendment expands the airspace area from a 6-mile radius to a 6.5-mile radius of Garden County Airport, corrects the identified location of the Oshkosh NDB in the legal description, defines the airspace extension in relation to the Oshkosh NDB, corrects the NDB bearing from 303° to 300° and brings the legal description of the Oshkosh, NE Class E airspace area into compliance with FAA Orders 7400.2E and 8260.19C. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-17427/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-27.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tekamah, NE. An examination of controlled airspace for Tekamah Municipal Airport revealed it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2E for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the airport reference point to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. The examination also revealed that the Class E airspace legal description was not in compliance with FAA Order 8260.19C, Flight Procedures and Airspace. The limit of the Class E airspace area extension should be defined as a distance from the Tekamah very high frequency omni-directional radio range (VOR) and the radial corrected. This amendment expands the airspace area from a 6-mile radius to a 6.4-mile radius of Tekamah Municipal Airport, defines the extension in relation to the Tekamah VOR, corrects the VOR radial from 129° to 130° and brings the legal description of the Tekamah, NE Class E airspace area into compliance with FAA Orders 7400.2E and 8260.19C. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-17431/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-29.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kimball, NE. Kimball Municipal Airport has been renamed Kimball Municipal Airport/Robert E. Arraj Field. An examination of Kimball, NE Class E airspace revealed it does not meet criteria as specified in FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The examination also identified a discrepancy in the bearing from the Kimball nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) used in the Class E airspace legal description and also that the legal description was not in compliance with FAA Order 8260.19C, Flight Procedures and Airspace. The limit of the Class E airspace area extension should be defined as a distance from the Kimball NDB and the bearing corrected. This amendment replaces “Kimball Memorial Municipal Airport,” the former name of the airport, with “Kimball Municipal Airport/Robert E. Arraj Field,” the new name of the airport, in the legal description, defines the airspace extension in relation to the Kimball NDB, corrects the NDB bearing from 120° to 124° and brings the legal description of the Kimball, NE Class E airspace area into compliance with FAA Orders 7400.2E and 8260.19C. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledging receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-17433/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-31.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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.

This amendment to 14 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Superior, NE. An examination of controlled airspace for Superior Municipal Airport revealed it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2E for an aircraft to reach 1,200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the airport reference point (ARP) to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. The examination also identified discrepancies in the Superior Municipal Airport ARP used in the Class E airspace legal description. This amendment expands the airspace area from a 6-mile radius to a 6.5-mile radius of Superior Municipal Airport, corrects the ARP in the legal description and brings the legal description of the Superior, NE Class E airspace area into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-17432/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-30.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 19779;) and (3) if promulgated, 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.

This amendment to 15 CFR 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Minden, NE. An examination of controlled airspace for Pioneer Village Field revealed it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2E for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the airport reference point (AFP) to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher ten of a mile. The examination identified a discrepancy in the Pioneer Village Field ARP used in the Class E airspace legal description and also that the legal description was not in compliance with FAA Order 8260.19C, Flight Procedures and Airspace. The Class E airspace area extension should be defined in relation to a radial of the Kearney very high frequency omni-directional radio range (VOR) and its limit extended to include the distance from the runway threshold to the ARP. This amendment expands the airspace area from a 6-mile radius to a 6.4-mile radius of Pioneer Village Field, corrects the ARP in the legal description, defines the extension in relation to the Kearney VOR 168° radial, extends the extension from 9.5 miles to 9.8 miles south of the airport and brings the legal description of the Minden, NE Class E airspace area into compliance with FAA Orders 7400.2E and 8260.19C. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.19L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment, and therefore, kissing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-17426/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-26.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA as determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Holdrege, NE. An examination of controlled airspace for Brewster Field revealed it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2E for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the airport reference point (ARP) to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. The examination identified discrepancies in the Brewster Field ARP used in the Class E airspace legal description and also that the legal description was not in compliance with FAA Order 8260.19C, Flight Procedures and Airspace. The limit of the Class E airspace area north extension should be defined as a distance from the Holdrege nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) and the bearing corrected. The limit of the Class E airspace area northeast extension should be extended and the Kearney very high frequency omni-directional radio range (VOR) radial corrected. This amendment expands the airspace area from a 6-mile radius to a 6.6-mile radius of Brewster Field, corrects the ARP in the legal description, defines the north extension in relation to the Holdrege ND, corrects the NDB bearing from 016° to 014°, extends the northeast extension from 10.6 miles to 11 miles northeast of the airport, corrects the Kearney VOR radial from 220° to 222° and brings the legal description of the Holdrege, NE Class E airspace area into compliance with FAA Orders 7400.2E and 8260.19C. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the Federal Register , and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written date, views, or arguments, as they may desire. comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-17425/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-25.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, 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.

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, the date of enactment of the amendments, generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to previously marketed devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807 of FDA's regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act for a device that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after receiving an order classifying the device in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the device. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing such classification (513(f)(2) of the act).

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act, FDA issued a notice on December 24, 2003, classifying the CellSearch Epithelial Cell Kit/Cell Spotter Analyzer in class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On December 24, 2003, Veridex, LLC, submitted a petition requesting classification of the CellSearch Epithelial Cell Kit/Cell Spotter Analyzer under section 513(f)(2) of the act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA reviewed the petition in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are to be classified into class II if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the petition, FDA determined that the CellSearch Epithelial Cell Kit/Cell Spotter Analyzer can be classified in class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

The device is assigned the generic name immunomagnetic circulating cancer cell selection and enumeration system and is identified as a device consisting of biological probes, fluorochromes, and other reagents; preservation and preparation devices; and a semiautomated analytical instrument to select and count circulating cancer cells in a prepared sample of whole blood. This device is intended for adjunctive use in monitoring or predicting cancer disease progression, response to therapy, and for the detection of recurrent disease.

FDA has identified no direct risks to health when tests are used as an aid to monitoring and predicting cancer disease progression and response to therapy. However, failure of the test to perform as indicated, or an error in interpretation of results, could lead to misdiagnosis and improper treatment, improper patient management, improper treatment selection and dosing, and failure to identify circulating cancer cells. Consequently, FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device: (1) False negative, false low cancer cell count; and (2) false positive, false high cancer cell count. Therefore, in addition to the general controls of the act, the device is subject to special controls, identified as the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Immunomagnetic Circulating Cancer Cell Selection and Enumeration System.”

The class II special controls guidance document provides information on how to meet premarket (510(k)) submission requirements for the device including recommendations on validation of performance characteristics, including software validation; control methods; reproducibility; and clinical studies. FDA believes that following the class II special controls guidance document addresses the risks to health identified in the previous paragraph. Therefore, on January 21, 2004, FDA issued an order to the petitioner classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying this classification by adding 21 CFR 866.6020.

Following the effective date of this final classification rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for an immunomagnetic circulating cancer cell selection and enumeration system will need to address the issues covered in the special controls guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness.

Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness; therefore, the device is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. The device is used as an adjunct in monitoring or predicting cancer disease progression and response to therapy and for detection of recurrent disease. FDA's review of the test's sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility with regard to key performance characteristics, test methodology and other relevant performance data, will ensure that acceptable levels of performance for both safety and effectiveness will be addressed before marketing clearance. Thus, persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the immunomagnetic circulating cancer cell selection and enumeration system they intend to market.

On July 18, 2003, the IRS and Treasury Department promulgated temporary regulations providing guidance regarding the application of the attribute reduction rules of sections 108 and 1017. Those temporary regulations clarified that, in the case of a transaction described in section 381(a) that ends a year in which the distributor or transferor corporation excludes income from the discharge of indebtedness from gross income under section 108(a)(excluded COD income), any tax attributes to which the acquiring corporation succeeds, including the basis of property acquired by the acquiring corporation in the transaction, must reflect the reductions required by sections 108 and 1017. For this purpose, all attributes listed in section 108(b)(2) of the distributor or transferor corporation immediately prior to the transaction described in section 381(a), including the basis of property, but after the determination of tax for the year of the discharge, are available for reduction under section 108(b)(2).

The temporary regulations were published in the Federal Register (68 FR 42590) for July 18, 2003, and a notice of proposed rulemaking (Reg-113112-03) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register for the same day (68 FR 42652). No public hearing was requested or held. One written comment was received. The following paragraphs describe the written comment received and the changes made to the temporary regulations in these final regulations.

The comment received argued that the rules of the temporary regulations are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS and Treasury Department continue to believe that the rules of sections 108(b)(4)(A) and 1017 merely prescribe an ordering of calculations and that the rules of the temporary regulations are consistent with the policies underlying sections 108 and 1017 and the corporate reorganization provisions, including “deferring, but eventually collecting within a reasonable period, tax on ordinary income realized from debt discharge.” S. Rep. No. 96-1035, at 10 (1980).

The IRS and Treasury Department, however, have become aware that taxpayers are taking the position that the rules of the temporary regulations do not apply in certain cases to reduce the attributes to which the acquiring corporation succeeded as a result of certain transactions described in section 381(a). Therefore, these final regulations make certain modifications to the rules of the temporary regulations to ensure that, to the extent possible, the transferor corporation's excluded COD income is applied to reduce attributes in a manner that will effect a deferral, rather than a permanent elimination, of income. In that regard, the final regulations apply in cases in which the taxpayer realizes excluded COD income either during or after the taxable year in which the taxpayer is the distributor or transferor of assets in a transaction described in section 381(a). In addition, it provides that the basis of stock or securities of the acquiring corporation received by the taxpayer in exchange for the transferred assets in the transaction described in section 381(a) is not available for reduction under section 108(b)(2).

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 these 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 Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Theresa M. Kolish, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under sections 446(b)(relating to general rules for methods of accounting), 860C (relating to other definitions and special rules applicable to REMICs), and 863(a)(relating to special rules for determining source) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). On July 21, 2003, the IRS and Treasury Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-162625-02) in the Federal Register (68 FR 43055).

In the notice of proposed rulemaking the IRS and Treasury Department requested comments on the proper method of accounting to be used by taxpayers for inducement fee income. No written or electronic comments were received from the public in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No requests to speak at the public hearing were received, and, accordingly, the hearing was canceled. Therefore, these final regulations adopt without substantive changes the proposed regulations set out in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Final regulations governing REMICs, issued in 1992, contain rules governing the transfer of noneconomic residual interests. Those regulations do not, however, contain rules that address the transferee's treatment of the fee received to induce the transferee to become the holder of a noneconomic residual interest. Following release of the final REMIC regulations, the IRS and the Treasury Department received requests for guidance on the proper method of accounting to be used by taxpayers for inducement fee income. These regulations provide rules relating to the proper timing and source of income from an inducement fee received in connection with becoming the holder of a noneconomic residual interest in a REMIC.

The notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 21, 2003, stated that, to clearly reflect income, an inducement fee must be included in income over a period that is reasonably related to the period during which the applicable REMIC is expected to generate taxable income or net loss allocable to the holder of the noneconomic residual interest. The notice of proposed rulemaking further stated that an inducement fee generally may not be taken into account in a single tax year. The notice of proposed rulemaking also set forth two safe harbor methods of accounting for inducement fees and contained a rule clarifying that an inducement fee is income from sources within the United States. The final regulations adopt these provisions without substantive change. For further information on the rationale for the rules set out in these final regulations, see the preamble for the proposed regulations in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

The effective date provision of § 1.446-6(g) contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking stated that these regulations would become effective upon publication of the final regulations in the Federal Register . The notice of proposed rulemaking specifically requested comments on whether the applicability of these regulations should be limited to transactions arising on or after their effective date and whether some delay in the effective date of these regulations is warranted. No comments were received from the public in response to this request. In finalizing these regulations, the IRS and Treasury Department have determined not to limit the applicability of these regulations to transactions arising on or after the effective date of the final regulations or to delay the effective date. The effective date provision in § 1.446-6(g), therefore, is also adopted without substantive change.

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 has also 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 these 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 Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is John W. Rogers III, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions & Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM was impracticable and contrary to the public interest, because the rule is needed to provide for worker safety while preparations are made for the removal of the bridge.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after Federal Register publication. The current bridge logs provide documentation that this bridge has not opened during the requested closure times. However, safety concerns arising from the bridge removal process require official closure of the bridge to navigation immediately. This rule provides provisions for vessels to transit through the bridge during the requested closure times.

The Maybank Highway Bridge, Stono River mile 11.0, Johns Island, South Carolina, is being replaced with a high-level fixed bridge.

The South Carolina Department of Transportation notified the Coast Guard on December 9, 2003, that the current operating schedule for this bridge does not meet the needs of the Department. On December 22, 2003, the owner of the bridge facsimiled the bridge logs to this office for documentation. The bridge logs indicated that, for the past six months, no bridge openings have been requested during nighttime hours. For the reasons stated above, the owner of the bridge requested that the regulations be changed to reflect the current operation of the bridge. The bridge will be required to open on signal from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. every day. At all other times, an opening will be available if a 12-hour notice is provided to the bridge owner at 843-830-9297. In cases of emergency, the bridge will be opened as soon as possible.

The draw of the Maybank Highway Bridge shall open on signal from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. From 4 p.m. to 9 a.m., the bridge will remain closed to navigation unless a 12-hour advance notification is provided to the owner of the bridge at 843-830-9297. The draw shall open as soon as possible for the passage of tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels in a situation where a delay would endanger life or property.

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The rule will not affect vessel traffic through this bridge, as no openings have been requested during the six months prior to this rule, and vessel traffic can make arrangements for a bridge opening during the closed periods.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the regulations will not affect the current pattern of marine traffic through this bridge, yet still provide for the reasonable needs of navigation.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

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 the preamble.

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.

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.

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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.

On February 10, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone; Coast Guard Station Fire Island, Fire Island, NY” in the Federal Register (69 FR 6221). Good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication. Throughout the summer months and fishing season, the waters immediately surrounding the Station and within a quarter mile radius of the Station become heavily congested with vessels, mainly consisting of recreational boaters. Any delay in implementing this zone would be contrary to the public interest as the accumulation of vessels immediately in front of the station presents a continuous hindrance to the safety of Coast Guard vessels responding to search and rescue or other maritime emergencies and hampers their ability to respond expeditiously. Any delay in implementing this zone would create unnecessary risk for Coast Guard vessels responding to maritime emergencies well into the boating season when there is an increased occurrence of search and rescue and other maritime emergencies. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

United States Coast Guard Station (STA) Fire Island is located in Babylon, New York, on the northern shore of Fire Island, Long Island, New York. The waters north of the Station, Fire Island Inlet, attract numerous recreational and small charter fishing vessels from May through October. Throughout the summer months and fishing season, the waters immediately surrounding the Station and within a quarter mile radius of the Station become heavily congested with vessels, mainly consisting of recreational boaters. The congestion affects the Station in that vessels accumulate immediately in front of it and within the immediate waterway the Coast Guard utilizes to respond to maritime emergency response. The increased vessel congestion during the boating season presents a continuous hindrance to the safety of Coast Guard vessels responding to search and rescue or other maritime emergencies, and hampers their ability to respond expeditiously. This safety zone is established by reference to coordinates, representing approximately 100 yards seaward from STA Fire Island vessels, facilities and property.

This safety zone has been tailored to fit the needs of safety, while minimizing the impact on the maritime community. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

No person or vessel may enter or remain in a prescribed safety zone for any time without the permission of the COTP. Each person or vessel in a safety zone shall obey any direction or order of the COTP or designated on-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel. COTP designated on-scene patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels.

Any violation of this safety zone is punishable by, among others, civil and criminal penalties, including in rem liability against the offending vessel as well as license sanctions against the mariner. This regulation is promulgated under the authority contained in 33 U.S.C. 1223 and 1225 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

We received no comments on the proposed rule. Three changes have been made to the regulatory text. The first changed the format of a coordinate listed in the proposed safety zone. The proposed language had the coordinate listed as 40-37.612 N, 073°, 15.664′ W. For consistency among the coordinates listed in the regulatory text, this coordinate is changed to utilize degrees and minutes symbols, namely to read 40°37.612′ N, 073°,15.664′ W.

The second change further defined the on-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels.

The third change explains how vessels within the safety zone may be hailed to include the siren, lights, or other means from a vessel, other than a Coast Guard vessel, upon which Coast Guard patrol personnel are aboard.

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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: the safety zone would encompass only a small portion of Fire Island Inlet allowing sufficient room for vessels to operate or anchor outside of the zone.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of Fire Island Inlet covered by the safety zone.

For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment ( see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under subsection 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant A. Logman, Waterways Management Officer, Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island Sound, at (203) 468-4429.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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.

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.

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 would not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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.

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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

NARA published a proposed rule on February 20, 2004, at 69 FR 7881, for a 60-day public comment period. NARA did not receive any comments and therefore, we are not making any changes in this final rule.

The information collection in § 1200.8, the written request, is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Under this Act, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The control number for this information collection is 3095-0052.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation does not have any federalism implications.