The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Act) (Pub. L. 107-171, May 13, 2002) re-authorized and amended EQIP, 16 U.S.C. 3840 et seq. NRCS is seeking public comment to help the agency review and assess the national priorities for EQIP.

Through EQIP, NRCS assists farmers and ranchers who face threats to soil, water, air, and related natural resources on their land. Eligible lands for EQIP assistance include grazing lands, wetlands, private non-industrial forestland, and wildlife habitat lands. Participation in the program is voluntary. Under EQIP, NRCS provides assistance in a manner that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible goals, optimizes environmental benefits, and helps farmers and ranchers meet Federal, State, and local environmental requirements. NRCS offers the program throughout the Nation using the services of NRCS personnel and technical service providers.

NRCS' approach to optimize environmental benefits integrates consideration of national priorities in four key program components: (1) The allocation of financial resources to States; (2) the allocation of financial resources within States; (3) the selection of conservation practices and the establishment of cost-share and incentive payment levels; and (4) the application ranking process.

With consideration and evaluation of the input obtained from this public notice and the public meetings, NRCS will update its national priorities to reflect our most pressing natural resource needs and emphasize off-site benefits to the environment. In the EQIP final rule, published May 30, 2003 (68 FR 32337), NRCS identified the following national priorities: (1) Reduction of non-point source pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, or excess salinity in impaired watersheds consistent with Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDL's), where available, as well as the reduction of groundwater contamination and the conservation of ground and surface water resources; (2) reduction of emissions, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NO2), volatile organic compounds, and ozone precursors and depleters that contribute to air quality impairment violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards; (3) reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land; and (4) promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation.

In establishing the promotion of at-risk species habitat conservation as a national priority, NRCS recognizes unique local situations have the potential to add to federally-listed and candidate species. NRCS supports activities that will reduce the need for additional regulation, but will monitor implementation of this aspect of the program to assure that primary focus is listed and candidate species.

NRCS has also identified national measures that can help EQIP achieve its national priorities and statutory requirements more efficiently. These measures include identifying and implementing conservation practices that: (1) Increase overall environmental benefits, for example by addressing multiple resource concerns, ensuring more durable environmental benefits and limiting adverse ancillary impacts; (2) encourage innovation; (3) support the statutory mandate to apply nationally 60 percent of available EQIP financial assistance to livestock-related conservation practices; and (4) employ appropriate tools to more comprehensively serve EQIP purposes, such as Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans and Integrated Pest Management Plans.

In the allocation of EQIP financial resource to States, NRCS uses the national priorities as guidance in helping to determine the amount of funds received by NRCS State Conservationists to use within their States. NRCS also retains a portion of EQIP funding to reward NRCS State operations that demonstrate a higher level of performance and address national priorities. Within States, the NRCS State Conservationists consider national priorities and measures as they allocate funds and determine priority resource concerns within their State. The NRCS State Conservationist, and the NRCS Designated Conservationists in consultation with the local work group, develops an application ranking that reflects both priority resource concerns within States and the national priorities and measures.

NRCS will continue to rely on locally-led conservation as an important cornerstone of EQIP. Using a locally-led process ensures consideration of the wide variability between and within States regarding resource issues, solutions, and limitations. Resource issues and concerns change because of shifts in population, climatic, or consumer habits; and Federal, State and local laws. Likewise, technical solutions evolve with the advent of new technology and the availability of new data on the effectiveness of practices.

As a result, EQIP implementation may vary across jurisdictional boundaries. For example, some States may use State-level based program delivery while others will use county or parish based or regional (multi-county) based delivery.

NRCS is, by this document, requesting the public to provide comment to which natural resource concerns should be given national priority in the implementation of EQIP. NRCS will utilize this input from the public, including affected stakeholders, and Federal agencies to make any revision as required to address emerging resource issues. Information and updates about the national priorities and measures will be provided to the NRCS State Conservationists through revisions to the Conservation Programs Manual, Part 515, Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Proposed Changes

The NCUA Board proposes revising § 712.3(d) so that a CUSO that is wholly owned need not secure its own public accounting firm financial statement audit if it is included on a consolidated basis in the audit of the FCU itself. Currently, this section requires an FCU to obtain a written commitment from any CUSO in which it has made an investment or to which it has made a loan that the CUSO will secure an annual opinion audit of its financial statements, performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a licensed, certified public accountant. 12 CFR 712.3(d)(2).

The current rule is designed to assure that any CUSO with respect to which an FCU intends to make a loan or an investment maintains its books and records in a manner that will enable the FCU to obtain accurate financial information about its operations and financial condition. The rule also requires that a CUSO provide NCUA with access to any of its books and records. 12 CFR 712.3(d)(3). The proposed amendment recognizes that, where a CUSO is controlled by an FCU by virtue of its ownership of one hundred percent of its voting shares, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) call for the preparation of financial statements of both the FCU and the CUSO on a consolidated basis. Accordingly, where the FCU has a financial statement audit prepared on a consolidated basis, the proposed rule would excuse the CUSO from having to obtain a separate audit opinion. Implicit in the proposal is the recognition that NCUA has full access to the information by virtue of its oversight of the parent FCU.

Consolidated financial statements present the results of operations, financial position, and cash flows of a parent and its subsidiaries as if the group were a single enterprise. Under GAAP, consolidated financial statements generally include enterprises in which the parent has a controlling financial interest, usually, a majority voting interest. There is a presumption that consolidated statements are more meaningful than separate statements and are usually necessary for a fair presentation when one of the enterprises in a group directly or indirectly has a controlling financial interest in another.

The Board notes this proposed change is consistent with its ongoing efforts to reduce regulatory burden while preserving necessary guidelines to assure that FCUs operate in a safe and sound manner. As a matter of practice, NCUA staff has since 1997 considered wholly-owned CUSOs to be in compliance with the rule if the parent FCU has obtained an opinion audit on consolidated financial statements. See Preamble to Proposed Amendments to 12 CFR part 712, 62 FR 11779, 11783 (March 13, 1997). Although GAAP would permit a consolidated audit where one entity owns the majority of the voting shares of another, the Board believes the current proposal will ensure that prospective minority investors have access to maximum disclosure of potential risks to their investment. The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposal.

The proposed rule also makes nonsubstantive, minor edits to the wording and punctuation of the audit provision.

The NCUA Board is interested in receiving comments on the proposed amendments to part 712.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact any proposed regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities. NCUA considers credit unions having less than ten million dollars in assets to be small for purposes of RFA. Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 87-2 as amended by IRPS 03-2. The proposal relieves a CUSO that is wholly owned from having to secure a separate opinion audit of its books, if it is included in the annual consolidated opinion audit of the credit union that is its parent owner. The NCUA has determined and certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions. Accordingly, the NCUA has determined that an RFA analysis is not required.

NCUA has determined that the proposed regulation does not increase paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This proposed rule, if adopted, will apply only to federally-chartered credit unions. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

NCUA's goal is to promulgate clear and understandable regulations that impose minimal regulatory burden. We request your comments on whether the proposed rule is understandable and minimally intrusive if implemented as proposed.

Accordingly, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 712 as follows:

How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number, “FAA-2005-20441; Directorate Identifier 2003-CE-35-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). This is docket number FAA-2005-20441; Directorate Identifier 2003-CE-35-AD. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Are there any specific portions of this proposed AD I should pay attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed 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 this proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts.

Where can I go to view the docket information? You may view the AD docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (eastern standard time), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? Reports from the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, that the safety margins established into the design of the fuselage may not be sufficient to sustain limit loads during certain maneuvers and during flight at certain speeds for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103 TWIN II, G103A TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes. This caused us to issue AD 2003-19-14, Amendment 39-13317 (68 FR 56152, September 30, 2003). AD 2003-19-14 required the following:

AD 2003-19-14 was issued as an interim action until the manufacturer completed further investigations into the effects of certain flight conditions on the fuselage structure and the development of corrective procedures.

The manufacturer conducted further investigations and static strength tests to verify the safety margins of the fuselage on the affected sailplanes. This information prompted us to issue AD 2003-19-14 R1, Amendment 39-13676 (69 FR 34258, June 21, 2004). AD 2003-19-14 R1 requires the following:

For Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes:

For Model G103 TWIN II sailplanes:

For Model G103A TWIN II ACRO (utility category) sailplanes:

For Model G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) sailplanes:

For Model G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes:

The manufacturer also developed a modification for Models G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes (aerobatic category). When this modification is incorporated, full acrobatic status is restored to these sailplanes.

What has happened since AD 2003-19-14 R1 to initiate this proposed action? The LBA recently notified FAA of the need to change AD 2003-19-14 R1. Based on analysis, the LBA reports that certain limits of operation for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes may be reinstated.

Specifically, the maximum airspeed in calm air (VNE) could be reinstated to 135 knots (155 mph/250 kmh) for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes. Aerobatic flight is still prohibited; however, simple aerobatic flight (looping, steep turns, lazy eights, and chandelles) may be performed following the flight manual.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? GROB Luft—und Raumfahrt has issued Service Bulletin MSB 315-64/3, dated September 14, 2004.

What are the provisions of this service information? The service bulletin includes procedures for:

What action did the LBA take? The LBA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued German AD Number D-2003-231R3, dated November 9, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these sailplanes in Germany.

Did the LBA inform the United States under the bilateral airworthiness agreement? These GROB Models G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103A TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes are manufactured in Germany 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.

Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us informed of the situation described above.

What has FAA decided? We have examined the LBA's findings, 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 the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other GROB Models G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103A TWIN II ACRO, and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, we are proposing AD action to prevent damage to the fuselage during limit load flight, which could result in reduced structural integrity. This condition could lead to loss of control of the sailplane.

What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would revise AD 2003-19-14 R1 with a new AD that would:

(1) retain the actions required in AD 2003-19-14 R1 for Models G103A

TWIN II ACRO and G103C TWIN III ACRO sailplanes; and

(2) reinstate certain operating limits by incorporating the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin for Model G103 TWIN ASTIR sailplanes.

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this proposed AD? On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs 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 sailplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that this proposed AD affects 94 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.

What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed modifications to the airspeed indicators, flight limitations placards, and revising the flight and maintenance manuals:

For G103A TWIN II ACRO (aerobatic category) sailplanes and G103C TWIN III ACRO (aerobatic category) sailplanes, we estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed fuselage modification:

What is the difference between the cost impact of this proposed AD and the cost impact of AD 2003-19-14 R1? There is no cost difference between this proposed AD and AD 2003-19-14 R1. This proposed AD is only revising certain operating limits for certain Model G103 TWIN ASTIR. This proposed AD does not require any additional actions than are currently required in AD 2003-19-14 R1.

What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.

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

Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 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 proposed 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 FAA-2005-20441; Directorate Identifier 2003-CE-35-AD” in your request.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-20691; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-249-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

We have received a report indicating that a reaction link for a Boeing Model 757 series airplane's main landing gear (MLG) fractured when proof-testing of the welds took place. The fracture occurred at one of two welds in the reaction link. Due to the weld fracture, other parts from the same weld lot were proof-tested at a higher load. During the second test, a second weld fracture occurred, indicating the potential for poor quality welds to pass the production proof load specified in the drawing.

Metallurgical examination revealed contamination at the weld surface. The vendor has since identified a total of 41 suspect reaction links. All of the suspect reaction links have passed the production proof load, which is approximately 1.3 times limit load. However, all of the reaction links welded prior to correcting the contamination problem must be removed and retested to validate compliance with ultimate load requirements. The faulty welds, if not corrected, could result in failure of the reaction link, collapse of the MLG, and consequently, loss of control on the ground and possible damage to the airplane.

We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletins 757-32-0155, dated September 30, 2004; and 757-32-0156, dated September 30, 2004. The service bulletins describe procedures for inspecting for the part number, the serial number, and the mark “RETESTED” on the reaction link of the MLG, and replacing the reaction link of the MLG with a retested reaction link if necessary. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as described in “Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Bulletins.” The proposed AD would also require sending the inspection results to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA.

Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins do not specify an inspection report, this proposed AD would require submitting an inspection report to the FAA if the inspection finds reaction links that are required to be replaced. We need further information on the extent of the quality control (QC) problem. When the unsafe condition addressed by an AD is likely due to a manufacturer's QC problem, a reporting requirement is instrumental in ensuring that we can gather as much information as possible regarding the extent and nature of the QC problem or breakdown, especially in cases where such data may not be available through other established means. This information is necessary to ensure that we can apply knowledge and lessons learned from these inspections to future MLG actions.

There are about 25 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 23 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $1,495, or $65 per airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-20690; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-230-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

We have received a report of a 3-inch skin crack on a Boeing Model 747-200F series airplane. The crack was located immediately above the Stringer (STR) 23 lap splice, between Body Station (BS) 282 and BS 298. The crack started in an area of the skin that had been inadvertently damaged during manufacture when an internal skin doubler was trimmed by grinding. The crack propagated by fatigue from the reworked area. This condition, if not corrected, could result in cracks in the fuselage skin, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the skin panel, which could cause rapid depressurization of the airplane.

The subject area on Boeing Model 747-200C series airplanes that are equipped with a nose cargo door is almost identical to that on Boeing Model 747-200F series airplanes that are equipped with a nose cargo door. Therefore, Boeing Model 747-200C series airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2493, dated July 3, 2003. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a one-time external detailed visual inspection for cracks, and a one-time low frequency eddy current inspection for material loss. The area to be inspected is 3.2 inches to 4.3 inches above the lower edge of the upper skin at STR 23L and STR 23R, from BS 282 to BS 298. If cracks are found, or if the skin is less than 0.056 inch thick, the service bulletin describes procedures for repair. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which accomplishes the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.”

The “Effectivity” paragraph in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2493, dated July 3, 2003, states that the service bulletin applies to all Boeing Model 747-200C and all Boeing Model 747-200F series airplanes. However, there was an unintended omission in the service bulletin. This proposed AD would apply only to Boeing Model 747-200C and Boeing Model 747-200F series airplanes that are equipped with a nose cargo door. This difference has been coordinated with the manufacturer.

The service bulletin refers to a detailed visual inspection. However, this proposed AD refers to this inspection as a “detailed inspection.” Note 1 of this proposed AD defines a detailed inspection.

There are about 77 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-20692; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-229-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that website, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

We have received reports indicating that operators have found several cracks in the station 488 frame web at the upper aft corner of the cutout for main entry door number 1 on at least three Boeing Model 747-200B series airplanes. Cracks were found in the web common to the door stop number 9 fastener holes on one of the airplanes, and at the tooling hole in the web above stringer 17 on two other airplanes. The manufacturer found similar cracks on a Model 747-100SR fatigue test airplane and determined the cracks were caused by fatigue due to cabin pressurization cyclic loading. This condition, if not detected and corrected in a timely manner, could cause the frame to break and lead to rapid decompression of the airplane.

The main entry door frame webs on certain Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes are similar to those on the affected Model 747-200B series airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2508, dated August 19, 2004. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a one-time high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks in the forward side of the station 488 door frame web at the tooling hole above stringer 17 and around door stop number 9; for doing repetitive detailed inspections for cracks in the forward side of the station 488 door frame web between door stop number 8 and the upper door sill; and for repairing the door frame web if necessary. Repairing the door frame web would eliminate the need for repetitive detailed inspections.

Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Referenced Service Bulletin.”

The service bulletin specifies that you may contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require you to repair those conditions in one of the following ways:

• Using a method that we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2508 also identifies Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2349 (cited in AD 2002-10-10, amendment 39-12756 (67 FR 36081, dated May 23, 2002)), and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2265 (cited in AD 91-11-01, amendment 39-6997 (56 FR 22306, dated May 15, 1991)), as alternative sources of information for accomplishing the repetitive detailed inspections specified in this proposed AD.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2508 refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2272 as an alternative for accomplishing the open-hole HFEC inspection of the frame inner chord specified in this proposed AD. If the frame inner chord replacement required by AD 91-11-01 (which refers to Service Bulletin 747-53-2272 as a source of service information) is being done concurrently with the repair of the door frame web at station 488 specified in this proposed AD, the open-hole HFEC inspection specified in this proposed AD is unnecessary.

There are about 274 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 140 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table, using an estimated labor rate of $65 per work hour, provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA has implemented new procedures for maintaining AD dockets electronically. As of May 17, 2004, new AD actions are posted on DMS and assigned a docket number. We track each action and assign a corresponding directorate identifier. The DMS AD docket number is in the form “Docket No. FAA-2005-99999.” The Transport Airplane Directorate identifier is in the form “Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-999-AD.” Each DMS AD docket also lists the directorate identifier (“Old Docket Number”) as a cross-reference for searching purposes.

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-20688; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-165-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that website, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

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 that affect you. You can get more information about plain language at http://www.faa.gov/language and http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

We have received a report indicating that, during flight test operations of a Boeing Model 757-300 series airplane before its delivery, the P50 panel was found to have some loose wire terminations that caused intermittent indications in the flight deck. As a result, the P50 panel was replaced. Other panels thought to have the same condition were inspected and repaired as necessary. A subsequent investigation of the problem showed that the component supplier did not follow the correct crimping, assembly, and test procedures when the components were made. Some terminal block modules were found to contain pins that were not fully seated and locked. Also, some wire terminations were found not sufficiently crimped, which lets the wires be easily pulled form the pins. These incorrect procedures were done on the P1-1, P1-3, P3-1, P3-3, P50, P51, and P54 panels. Loose wire terminations or the incorrect assembly of contacts in the panels, if not corrected, could result in intermittent indications in the flight deck, incorrect circuitry operation in the panels, and airplane system malfunctions that may adversely affect the alternate flaps, alternate gear extension, and fire extinguishing .

The P1-1, P1-3, P3-1, P3-3, P50, P51, and P54 panels on certain Model 757-200 series airplanes are identical to those on the affected Model 757-300 series airplanes. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

We have reviewed the service bulletins in the following table:

The service bulletins describe procedures for replacing certain electrical panels with certain new panels. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

There are about 19 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 12 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $252,834 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $3,296,982, or $253,614 per airplane. However, we have confirmed with the airplane manufacturer that warranty remedies may be available for all affected airplanes. The manufacturer may cover the cost of replacement parts and labor costs associated with this proposed AD, subject to warranty conditions. As a result, the costs attributable to the proposed AD may be less than stated above.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-20689; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-197-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that website, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

We have examined the underlying safety issues involved in recent fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

In addition, we have received a report indicating that, during electrical bonding and grounding tests of Boeing Model 747 series airplane wing fuel tank penetrations, the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube were found not to be electrically bonded to the front spar. The same condition is found on certain Model 707 series airplanes; on all Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; on all Model 747 series airplanes; and on certain Model 757 and Model 767 series airplanes. We also received a report indicating that a lightning test showed a higher-than-expected electrical current in the engine fuel feed tubes inside the wing fuel tank on Model 747 series airplanes. This condition could also exist on certain Model 757 series airplanes.

If the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tubes are not electrically bonded, there is a potential for arcing or sparking at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar during a lightning strike, which could provide a possible ignition source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank and result in a fuel tank explosion.

On November 10, 2004, we issued notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) Docket No. FAA-2004-19680 (Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-215-AD), which is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. That NPRM would require performing a test of the bonding resistance between the engine fuel feed tube fitting and the front spar, applying sealant on a hex nut inside the dry bay, and performing any applicable corrective actions. The actions specified by that NPRM are intended to prevent an ignition source from entering the fuel tank during a lightning strike event, which could cause a fuel tank explosion.

On July 15, 2004, we issued NPRM Docket No. FAA-2004-18759 (Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-280-AD), which is applicable to certain Boeing Model 707-100, -100B, -300, -300B (-320B Variant), -300C, and -E3A (Military) series airplanes; Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; and Model 747 series airplanes. That NPRM would require repetitive tests of the overwing fuel fill ports for certain wing tanks; an electrical bonding resistance test between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar inside the fuel tank of the wings; other specified actions; and applicable corrective actions if necessary. The actions specified by that NPRM are intended to prevent arcing or sparking at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar inside the fuel tank of the wings and between the overwing fuel fill ports and the airplane structure during a lightning strike. Such arcing or sparking could provide a possible ignition source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank and cause consequent fuel tank explosions.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 (for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes); and 757-28A0077 (for Model 757-300 series airplanes); both dated August 27, 2004. The service bulletins describe procedures for testing the electrical bond between the engine fuel feed hose and the wing front spar; reworking the bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel hose and the front spar; adding sealant to hose fittings and tube couplings, as applicable; and performing a general visual inspection and applicable corrective actions to ensure that an electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed hose and the adjacent wing station 285.65 rib in the left and right wing fuel tanks.

Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Referenced Service Bulletins.”

Although the referenced service bulletins would allow operator's equivalent procedures to be used for aircraft maintenance manuals (AMM) referenced in the service bulletins, this proposed AD would require you to use the referenced AMMs except as provided in paragraph (j) of this proposed AD.

There are about 1,040 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 700 airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is estimated to be $65 per work hour. Parts would be supplied from operator stock. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-20687; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-171-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments submitted by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that the existing system design of the BRUCE emergency power supply units (EPSU) of the floor proximity emergency escape path marking system (FPEEPMS) installed on these airplanes does not provide adequate floor path lighting and marking for safe evacuation of the airplane in the event of an emergency.

Investigation revealed that the system does not comply with the certification requirements specified in section 121.310(c)(3) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.310), which includes the floor proximity emergency escape path marking requirements in section 25.812(L)(1), since none of the connected components of the FPEEPMS, including the exit identifiers, will illuminate in the event of an emergency landing if there is a vertical separation of the fuselage forward of exit door number 1. These conditions, if not corrected, could impede or delay the flight crew and passengers when exiting the airplane during an emergency landing.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-33-1041, dated December 11, 2003. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the FPEEPMS. The modification includes removing the BRUCE and DIEHL EPSUs of the FPEEPMS; modifying the wiring; installing placards; and installing new, improved DIEHL EPSUs. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2004-121 R1, dated October 13, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.

These airplane models are manufactured in France 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, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

This proposed AD would affect about 236 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 20 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $280 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed replacement for U.S. operators is $372,880, or $1,580 per airplane.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas transport category airplanes, was published in the Federal Register as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 19, 2003 (68 FR 54864). The proposed rule would have required inspection for proper installation, damage, or abrasion of the power feeder cables and trough installations; proper installation of caterpillar grommets in the lightening holes; and repair if necessary. The proposed rule also would have required modification of the power feeder cable installation and added airplanes to the applicability of existing AD 85-25-06, amendment 39-5177 (50 FR 49833, December 5, 1985). That action was prompted by reports of chafing and/or abrasion of the power feeder cables and six instances of shorted power feeder cables. The proposed actions were intended to prevent a possible loss of electrical bus power, which could result in a potential fire ignition source and consequent fire in the cabin.

Since the issuance of that NPRM, we have had clarification from the manufacturer that no additional airplanes have been identified that may be affected by the unsafe condition described above, other than those specified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 24-78, dated April 9, 1985. That service bulletin was specified in AD 85-25-06 as the appropriate source of service information for that AD.

Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that, since DC-9 Service Bulletin 27-78, dated April 9, 1985, is the service information cited in AD 85-25-06 and no additional airplanes have been identified that may be affected by the unsafe condition, it is unnecessary to supersede that AD. Accordingly, the proposed rule is hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawal of this NPRM constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another action in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket 2002-NM-306-AD, published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2003 (68 FR 54864), is withdrawn.

How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number, “FAA-2004-19473; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-35-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). This is docket number FAA-2004-19473. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Are there any specific portions of this proposed AD I should pay attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed 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 this proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts.

Where can I go to view the docket information? You may view the AD docket that contains the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (eastern standard time), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

What events have caused this proposed AD? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain GROB-WERKE Model G120A airplanes. The LBA reports that the up-lock/main landing gear roller combination may become jammed because of contamination (i.e., dirt or dust) or minor misalignments of the assembly.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? This condition, if not corrected, could cause the MLG to become jammed and to not extend, which could result in loss of control of the airplane during landing.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? GROB-WERKE has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB1121-052/2, dated February 14, 2005.

What are the provisions of this service information? The service bulletin includes procedures for:

What action did the LBA take? The LBA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued German AD Number D-2004-299R1, dated November 9, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany.

Did the LBA inform the United States under the bilateral airworthiness agreement? These GROB-WERKE Model G120A airplanes are manufactured in Germany 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.

Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us informed of the situation described above.

What has FAA decided? We have examined the LBA's findings, 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 the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other GROB-WERKE Model G120A airplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, we are proposing AD action to prevent the MLG from becoming jammed and not extending, which could result in loss of control of the airplane during landing.

What would this proposed AD require? This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin.

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this proposed AD? On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs 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 would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? GROB-WERKE will provide warranty credit for labor and parts.

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

Would this proposed AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 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 proposed 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 FAA-2004-19473; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-35-AD” in your request.

This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of safety for the design of aircraft. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority since it corrects an unsafe condition in the design of the aircraft caused by the MLG from becoming jammed and not extending.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers 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-2005-20572/Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This notice proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area for an airport at Valentine, NE. The FAA has modified some existing instrument approach procedures (IAPs) and developed area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) IAPs to serve Miller Field, Valentine, NE. Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing these IAPs. Weather observations would be provided by an Automatic Surface Observing System (ASOS) and communications would be direct with Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center.

This notice also proposes to revise the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Valentine, NE. An examination of this Class E airspace area for Valentine, NE revealed noncompliance with FAA directives. This proposal would correct identified discrepancies by eliminating the northwest extension to the airspace area, decreasing the width of the southeast extension from 2.6 miles to 2.5 miles each side of the 149° bearing from the Valentine nondirectional radio beacon (NDB), decreasing the length of the southeast extension in from 7.9 miles from the airport to 7 miles from the NDB, defining airspace of appropriate dimensions to protect aircraft departing and executing instrument approach procedures to Miller Field and bringing the airspace area into compliance with FAA directives. Both areas would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of the same Order. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority since it would contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Miller Field.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) was established as an independent agency effective March 31, 1995, under Public Law 103-296, the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (SSIPIA). The SSIPIA also created an independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG), to which the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) delegated certain authority under the civil monetary penalty (CMP) provisions on June 28, 1995.

On November 27, 1995, the OIG published a final rule at 60 FR 58225 establishing a new part 498 in title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This part serves as a repository for SSA's existing CMP regulations which implemented section 1140 of the Social Security Act (the Act). These regulations were previously located at 42 CFR part 1003.

In addition, the OIG published a final rule on April 24, 1996 at 61 FR 18078 to implement SSA's new CMP authority provided under section 206(b) of the SSIPIA, which added section 1129 to the Act, effective October 1, 1994. This authority allows for the imposition of penalties and assessments against any individual, organization, agency or other entity that makes or causes to be made a false or misleading statement or representation of a material fact for use in determining initial or continuing rights to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or supplemental security income benefit payments if the person knew or should have known that such statement or representation was false, misleading or omitted a material fact.

Section 251(a) of Public Law 106-169, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, enacted December 14, 1999, added title VIII, Special Benefits for Certain World War II veterans, to the Social Security Act. Section 251(b)(6) of Public Law 106-169 amended section 1129 to include reference to title VIII.

Sections 111, 201, 204, and 207 of Public Law 108-203, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, enacted March 2, 2004, amended sections 1129 and 1140 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8 and 1320b-10).

The two amendments to section 1129 broaden the scope of the civil monetary penalty program by adding new categories for penalties (1) against representative payees with respect to wrongful conversions, and (2) against individuals who withhold the disclosure of material facts to the Social Security Administration.

The first amendment to section 1129 extends the civil monetary penalty provisions to representative payees of individuals entitled to benefits. The proposed rule would implement this amendment by subjecting representative payees who wrongfully convert a payment of benefits intended for another Social Security beneficiary to a penalty of up to $5,000 for each such wrongful conversion. Our proposed rule would apply to individuals, organizations, agencies, or other entities who receive benefits on behalf of another individual, for the purpose of distributing the benefits with the beneficiary's best interests in mind. Previously, representative payees could elude civil monetary penalties under section 1129 for such wrongful actions, as section 1129 did not extend to representative payees who improperly converted lawfully issued payments intended for another beneficiary.

The second amendment under section 1129 extends the civil monetary penalty provisions to individuals who withhold disclosure of material facts used in the determination of eligibility of benefit amounts under title II, title VIII or title XVI of the Social Security Act from SSA.

Our proposed rule would implement this amendment by providing for civil monetary penalties and assessments to be imposed for the failure to come forward and notify SSA of changed circumstances that affect eligibility or benefit amounts when the individual knew or should have known that the withheld fact was material and that the failure to come forward was misleading.

This amendment extends the coverage of section 1129. Previously, under section 1129, the OIG was only able to impose a civil monetary penalty and assessment against individuals who made false statements or representations or omitted a material fact on a SSA form or to a SSA employee. Therefore, a civil monetary penalty and assessment could not be imposed against an individual who should have known to, but did not, come forward to notify the SSA of changed circumstances that affected that individual's or another individual's eligibility or benefit amount. This amendment is intended to cover situations that include (but are not limited to) the following: (1) When an individual, who has a joint bank account with a beneficiary, knows or should have known that SSA directly deposits the beneficiary's Social Security checks in the joint account; upon death of the beneficiary, the individual fails to disclose the death of the beneficiary to SSA in order to continue to receive and use the deceased beneficiary's Social Security checks; and (2) when an individual receives benefits under one Social Security number, but is working under a second Social Security number.

This proposed rule would allow the OIG to impose a penalty of up to $5,000, and an assessment in lieu of damages, for each individual payment of Social Security benefits received while withholding disclosure of such material fact.

The Senate Committee Report, 108-176, accompanying Public Law 108-203, states in its analysis of section 201, under the subheading Reason for Change, at page 13-14, that this amendment is not intended to apply against individuals whose failure to come forward was not for the purpose of improperly obtaining or continuing to receive benefits.

This amendment is effective for violations occurring after the date on which the Commissioner of Social Security implements the centralized computer file described in section 202 of Public Law 108-203.

This amendment strengthens the deterrence factor of section 1129 by enabling the OIG to pursue civil monetary penalties and assessments against individuals who withhold disclosure of material facts in order to receive benefits to which they may not be entitled. The OIG will continue to use its discretion to impose reasonable penalties on a case-by-case basis by applying the five enumerated factors employed in other section 1129 cases, as set out at 20 CFR 498.106(a).

Section 1140 prohibits individuals and groups from using specific terms related to Social Security in an advertisement or other format that could be interpreted or construed as conveying the impression that the advertisement is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Social Security Administration. Section 1140 is aimed at protecting consumers, especially senior citizens who rely on SSA and are some of our most vulnerable stakeholders, from being victimized by misleading advertisers or direct marketers who improperly use Social Security symbols or emblems in order to suggest they have some connection with or authorization from SSA.

The first amendment to section 1140 authorizes the Commissioner to impose a penalty against certain individuals or groups who offer to assist an individual in obtaining products or services for a fee that the Social Security Administration provides free of charge. If the individual or group charges a fee for such product or service, the solicitation/mailing for services must include a written notice stating the product or service is available from the Social Security Administration free of charge. Section 204 of Public Law 108-203 authorizes the Commissioner to set the standards for the notice with respect to content, placement and legibility. Pursuant to this authority, our proposed rule would require clear and prominent display of the notice. By drawing the attention of the reader, the notice would help protect consumers. The goal of this regulation would be to prevent solicitations/mailings that embed such notices among other text, or place the notice in small type face in an attempt to hide the fact that the products or services are provided free of charge by SSA.

In addition, the amendment provides exceptions for persons serving as a claimant representative in connection with a claim arising under title II, title VIII or title XVI and for persons assisting individuals in a plan with the goal of supporting themselves without Social Security disability benefits.

The second amendment to section 1140 adds certain words and phases to the statute and prohibits the use of these words and phrases in a misleading manner. Specifically, the amendment expands section 1140 to include words associated with “Death Benefits Update,” “Federal Benefit Information,” “Funeral Expenses,” or “Final Supplemental Program.” These words and phrases have been used by solicitors/marketers to give the false impression that their solicitations/mailings are connected to or authorized by the SSA.

We are proposing the following changes in our regulations to reflect the amendments to the Act made by section 251 of Public Law 106-169 and sections 111, 201, 204, and 207 of Public Law 108-203.

We propose to amend §§ 498.100 and 498.102 to include:

(1) Individuals who fail to come forward to disclose to SSA a material fact, which they knew or should have known was material and who knew or should have known that such withholding disclosure of a material fact was misleading, for purposes of determining eligibility for, or the amount of, Social Security benefits under titles II, VIII, or XVI of the Act; and

(2) Representative payees who convert payments received under titles II, VIII, or XVI of the Act, to a use that the representative payee knew or should have known was other than for the use and benefit of the beneficiary, as new bases for imposing a civil monetary penalty and assessment under section 1129.

We also propose to amend § 498.102 to include:

(1) In the list of words prohibited to be used in a manner that such person knew or should have known would convey the false impression that the solicitation/mailing was approved, endorsed, or authorized by the SSA or that the sender had some connection with or authorization from the SSA, the following: (a) Death Benefits Update; (b) Federal Benefit Information; (c) Funeral Expenses; or (d) Final Supplemental Program to the previously existing list of “Social Security,” “Social Security Administration,” “Social Security Account,” “Social Security System,” “Supplemental Security Income Program,” “SSA,” “SSI” or any combination of those words; and

(2) The failure to provide written notice in a solicitation/mailing offering to assist an individual in obtaining products or services that the mailer knew or should have known were provided free of charge by the SSA pursuant to the standards set out in § 498.102(d), as new bases for imposing a civil monetary penalty and assessment under section 1140.

We propose to amend the definition of “material fact” in § 498.101 to include title VIII of the Social Security Act, to reflect the inclusion of this title in section 1129 by Public Law 106-169.

We also propose to insert a definition for “Otherwise withhold disclosure” to mean the failure to come forward to notify the SSA of a material fact, when such person knew or should have known that the withheld fact was material and that such withholding was misleading for purposes of determining eligibility or Social Security benefit amount for that person or another person.

We propose to amend §§ 498.103 and 498.104 to authorize the imposition of a civil monetary penalty and assessment against: (1) Individuals who fail to come forward to disclose to SSA a material fact, which they knew or should have known was material and who knew or should have known that such withholding disclosure of a material fact was misleading, for purposes of determining eligibility for, or the amount of, Social Security benefits under titles II, VIII, or XVI of the Act; (2) representative payees who convert payments received under titles II, VIII, or XVI of the Act to a use that the representative payee knew or should have known was other than for the use and benefit of the beneficiary; (3) individuals who use in a solicitation/mailing the phrases “Death Benefits Update,” “Federal Benefit Information,” “Funeral Expenses,” or “Final Supplemental Program” in a manner that such person knew or should have known would convey the false impression that the solicitation/mailing was approved, endorsed, or authorized by the SSA or that the sender had some connection with or authorization from the SSA; and, (4) entities that fail to provide written notice in a solicitation/mailing offering to assist an individual in obtaining products or services that the mailer knew or should have known were provided free of charge by the SSA, pursuant to the standards set out in § 498.102(d).

We are proposing to amend §§ 498.106 and 498.109 to reflect the amendments to §§ 498.102, 498.103, and 498.104.

We are proposing to amend §§ 498.114 and 498.128 to reflect the expansion of the scope of section 1129 by Public Law 108-203, to include more than false statements or omissions from false statements in connection with an individual's eligibility for, or amount of, Social Security benefits and the addition of title VIII by Public Law 106-169.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these rules, we invite your comments in how to make these rules easier to understand. For example:

• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?

• Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated?

• Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is unclear?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rules easier to understand?

• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists or diagrams?

• What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand?

We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these proposed rules meet the requirements for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258. Thus, they are subject to OMB review.

We have determined that no regulatory impact analysis is required for these proposed regulations. While the penalties and assessments which the OIG could impose as a result of sections 1129 and 1140 of the Act might have a slight impact on small entities, we do not anticipate that a substantial number of small entities will be significantly affected by these proposed rules. Based on our determination, the Inspector General certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. These proposed rules are modifications to the existing sections 1129 and 1140 of the Act and do not substantially alter the effect on small entities. Therefore we have not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.

These proposed regulations impose no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements requiring OMB clearance.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend part 498 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

MMS proposes to make the following amendments to its regulations in Title 30 CFR Part 250:

1. Amend the definition of the term “Person” in § 250.105 to include joint ventures as an example of an association.

2. Amend the definition of the term “You” at § 250.105 to include the words “designated operator.” Under § 250.143, a designated operator is authorized to act on behalf of, and to fulfill the obligations of, a lessee under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the lease, and the regulations in Part 250. Therefore, a designated operator is an entity that must comply with applicable requirements, and hence is a part of the regulated community covered by the word “You.”

3. Clarify in § 250.194(a) the basis upon which the Regional Director invokes the requirement for an archaeological survey on a lease area. Because it cannot be determined whether it is “likely” that an archaeological resource exists on a specific lease area until the archaeological survey has first been conducted, the wording would be changed to state, “if the Regional Director has reason to believe that an archaeological resource may exist.” The “reason to believe” is established by a technical analysis of existing archaeological, geological, and other pertinent environmental data. To more closely reflect the wording of the new Subpart B regulations, and to clarify that the archaeological report accompanies, but is not part of, the Exploration Plan (EP) or Development and Production Plan (DPP), we propose to modify the second part of this sentence to state that “* * * the Regional Director will request in writing that your EP or DPP be accompanied by an archaeological report.”

4. Redesignate §§ 250.195 and 250.196 as §§ 250.196 and 250.197, respectively, and add a new § 250.195 requiring the lessee or operator to notify MMS when a well has actually begun producing. When the lessee or operator files a form MMS-125 (OMB Approval No. 1010-0046), End of Operations Report (formerly Well Summary Report), the well status is often shown as “shut in” since production facilities are not ready. Therefore, a “first production notice” often will be the only indication MMS receives that a well has actually begun producing. Such a notice is not currently required by our regulations, but has become standard practice. MMS is proposing to add this requirement because this information has become one of the prime parameters in determining inspection and testing schedules for safety system devices.

5. Reorganize the forms data release table in the proposed redesignated § 250.197(a), and add entries for the new forms MMS-123S, Supplemental APD Information Sheet; MMS-137, OCS Plan Information; MMS-133, Well Activity Report; and MMS-140, Bottomhole Pressure Survey Report. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the use of these new forms, all of which contain proprietary data. MMS also proposes deleting the entry for form MMS-128, Semiannual Well Test Report, because no proprietary information is reported on this form. The reorganization of the table does not change the current data release timeframe for any of the other forms included in the table.

It should be noted that MMS very recently redesigned and renamed some of its forms. This is part of a separate process to provide a future option for electronic submission and streamlining of the data collected on MMS forms. In addition to any actual data element changes we made to the forms, we completely renumbered all of the data elements on most of the forms. The form and item numbers shown in the table at proposed

§ 250.197(a) correspond to the revised forms. You may obtain copies of the forms listed in the table from any of the OCS regional offices or at the Web site: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/mmsforms/frmindx.html

6. Revise § 250.197(b)(8) to clarify existing requirements by including release times for certain data and information submitted on well operations, and adding special provisions for the release of directional surveys.

7. Insert a new form MMS-144, Rig Movement in the table at existing § 250.199.

8. Remove the definitions of “I, me, or you” and “Person” at § 250.1402, because the definitions for these terms are found at § 250.105.

All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule:

1. Would not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required because:

a. The proposed changes to the definitions and data release tables would have no financial impact on the oil and gas industry.

b. The proposed requirements would minimally increase the paperwork burden for submitting first production notices under newly proposed § 250.195. At an average cost of $50 per hour, the increase of approximately 250 hours each year would result in an hour burden impact of $12,500. (Refer to the Paperwork Reduction Act section later in the preamble.)

2. Would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. It would not affect how lessees or operators interact with other agencies.

3. Would not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. It would have no effect on the rights of the recipients of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

4. Does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

The Department of Interior (DOI) certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RF Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It would apply to all lessees operating on the OCS. Small lessees would fall under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) North American Industry Classification System Codes 211111, which includes companies that extract crude petroleum and natural gas. Under this code, a small company is one with fewer than 500 employees. Based on these criteria, MMS estimates that about 70 percent of these companies are considered small. The proposed requirements would minimally increase the paperwork burden for submitting first production notices under newly proposed § 250.195. At an average cost of $50 per hour, the increase of approximately 250 hours each year would result in an hour burden impact of $12,500. (Refer to the Paperwork Reduction Act section later in the preamble.) Thus, based on 130 lessees/operators, the average increase would be $100, for both large and small entities. Since 70 percent of the companies are small businesses, the total paperwork burden for small companies would be approximately 175 man hours, representing an annual hour cost burden of $8,750.

Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS, call toll-free at (888) 734-3247. You may comment to the SBA without fear of retaliation. Disciplinary action for retaliation by an MMS employee may include suspension or termination from employment with the DOI.

This proposed rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This proposed rule:

1. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. As described above, we estimate an annual increase of $100 per respondent. These costs will not cause an annual effect on the economy of $100 million.

2. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. The minor increase in cost would not change the way the oil and gas industry conducts business, nor would it affect regional oil and gas prices. Therefore, it would not cause major cost increases for consumers, the oil and gas industry, or any government agencies.

3. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or ability of United States (U.S.)-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. All lessees and drilling contractors, regardless of nationality, would have to comply with the requirements of this proposed rule, so it would not affect competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

The proposed rule would require a new information collection (IC), and an IC request (form OMB 83-I) has been submitted to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The title of the collection of information is “30 CFR 250, Subpart A, General, Data Release and Definitions.” The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves the collection of information and assigns a control number, you are not required to respond.

Respondents include approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas lessees. The frequency of reporting and recordkeeping is generally on occasion. Responses are mandatory. The IC does not include questions of a sensitive nature. MMS will protect information considered proprietary according to 30 CFR § 250.196, “Data and information to be made available to the public,” 30 CFR Part 252, “OCS Oil and Gas Information Program,” and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 2).

The proposed rule addresses several reports and forms required by current regulations. All the burdens for the individual reports and forms have been approved by OMB and assigned OMB control numbers according to their associated subparts.

Proposed § 250.195 would require the lessee or operator to notify MMS when a well has actually begun producing. When the lessee or operator files a form MMS-125, End of Operations Report (formerly the Well Summary Report), the well status is often shown as “shut in” since production facilities are not ready. Currently there is no regulatory requirement for lessees or operators to formally notify MMS of “first production,” although most companies already notify MMS when a well begins to produce. This practice serves to alert both MMS and the operator of the requirements pertaining to the inspection, installation, and maintenance of safety systems. We estimate 250 annual notifications would be submitted, requiring about 1 hour each to prepare and submit.

The proposed rule would increase the total paperwork hour burden of the 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart A, regulations by 250 hours. Based on a cost factor of $50 per hour, the hour burden of the new paperwork requirements would be $12,500. When this rulemaking becomes effective, MMS will consolidate the 250 burden hours with the primary information collection for 30 CFR 250, Subpart A (OMB control number 1010-0114, expiration date October 31, 2007).

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting burden in the proposed rule.

1. We specifically solicit comments on the following questions:

a. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for MMS to properly perform its functions, and will it be useful?

b. Are the estimates of the burden hours of the proposed collection reasonable?

c. Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality, clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?

d. Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology?

2. In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping “non-hour” cost burden resulting from the collection of information. We have not identified any non-hour cost burden and solicit your comments on this item. For reporting and recordkeeping only, your response should split the cost estimate into two components: (a) the total capital and startup cost component and (b) the annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of services component. Your estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and disclose or provide the information. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment or services purchased before October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual business or private practice.

If you wish to comment on the hour burdens in response to this notice, you may send your comments to OMB, with a copy to MMS (see the ADDRESSES section of this notice). OMB is required to make its decision on the information collection aspects of this proposed rule between 30 to 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by April 22, 2005. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to MMS on the proposed regulations.

According to E.O. 13132, this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications. This proposed rule would not substantially and directly affect the relationship between Federal and State Governments. This proposed rule would clarify and require information from lessees/operators on the OCS, which is outside State jurisdiction. States have no role in this activity with or without this proposed rule, and this proposed rule would not impose costs on States or localities.

According to E.O. 12630, the proposed rule does not have significant Takings Implications. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required. The rulemaking is not a governmental action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights.

According to E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

The rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement is not required.

This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. It does not have any Federal mandates, nor a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

In accordance with E.O. 13175, this proposed rule would not have tribal implications that impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals Management Service proposes to amend 30 CFR Part 250 as follows:

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-05-015], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m) at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a safety zone around the Atlantis Semi-Submersible facility, a petroleum and gas production facility in the Gulf of Mexico in Green Canyon 787 (GC 787), located at position 27°11′44″ N, 90°01′37″ W. This facility is expected to be on location beginning September 1, 2005.

This proposed safety zone is in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this regulation it is considered to be in waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the area of the proposed safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico also includes an extensive system of fairways. The fairway nearest the proposed safety zone is the South of Gulf Safety Fairway. Significant amounts of vessel traffic occur in or near the various fairways in the deepwater area.

British Petroleum Exploration and Production, Inc., hereafter referred to as BP, has requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone in the Gulf of Mexico around the Atlantis Semi-Submersible facility.

The request for the safety zone was made due to the high level of shipping activity around the facility and the associated safety concerns for both the onboard personnel and the environment. Information provided by BP to the Coast Guard indicates that the location, production level, and personnel levels on board the facility make it highly likely that any allision with the facility or its mooring system would result in a catastrophic event.

The Coast Guard has evaluated BP's information and concerns against Eighth Coast Guard District criteria developed to determine if an Outer Continental Shelf facility qualifies for a safety zone. Several factors were considered to determine the necessity of a safety zone for the Atlantis Semi-Submersible facility: (1) The facility is located approximately 36 nautical miles south of the South of Gulf Safety Fairway; (2) the facility will have a high daily production capacity of petroleum oil and gas per day; (3) the facility will be manned; and (4) the facility will be of the semi-submersible type.

We conclude that the risk of allision to the facility and the potential for loss of life and damage to the environment resulting from such an accident warrants the establishment of this proposed safety zone. The proposed rule would significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills and natural gas releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. This proposed regulation is issued pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 U.S.C. 1333 as set out in the authority citation for 33 CFR part 147.

The proposed safety zone would encompass the area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the Atlantis's structure outer edge. No vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in this proposed safety zone except the following: an attending vessel; a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or a vessel authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander.

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed safety zone will not overlap any of the safety fairways within the Gulf of Mexico.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the Atlantis Semi-Submersible will be located far offshore, few privately owned fishing vessels and recreational boats/yachts operate in the area and alternate routes are available for those vessels. Use of an alternate route may cause a vessel to incur a delay of 4 to 10 minutes in arriving at their destinations depending on how fast the vessel is traveling. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this proposed rule on small entities to be minimal.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Kevin Lynn, Project Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-6271.

This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.”

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1 paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA.

A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-05-012], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District (m) at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of a safety zone around the Mad Dog Truss Spar Platform, a petroleum and gas production facility in the Gulf of Mexico: Mad Dog Truss Spar Platform, Green Canyon 782 (GC 782), located at position 27°11′18″ N, 91°05′12″ W.

This proposed safety zone is in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this regulation it is considered to be in waters of 304.8 meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. Navigation in the area of the proposed safety zone consists of large commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico also includes an extensive system of fairways. The fairway nearest the proposed safety zone is the Gulf Safety Fairway—Aransas Pass Safety Fairway to Southwest Pass Safety Fairway. Significant amounts of vessel traffic occur in or near the various fairways in the deepwater area.

British Petroleum Exploration and Production, Inc., hereafter referred to as BP, has requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone in the Gulf of Mexico around the Mad Dog Truss Spar Platform.

The request for the safety zone was made due to the potential for damage to the mooring system and the platform should vessel traffic approach too close to the Mad Dog platform's location. Information provided by BP to the Coast Guard indicates that the location, production level, and personnel levels on board the facility make it highly likely that any allision with the facility or its mooring system would result in a catastrophic event.

The Coast Guard has evaluated BP's information and concerns against Eighth Coast Guard District criteria developed to determine if an Outer Continental Shelf facility qualifies for a safety zone. Several factors were considered to determine the necessity of a safety zone for the Mad Dog Truss Spar Platform facility: (1) The facility is located approximately 45 nautical miles south of the Gulf Safety Fairway—Aransas Pass Safety Fairway to Southwest Pass Safety Fairway, (2) the facility will have a high daily production capacity of petroleum oil and gas per day; (3) the facility will be manned; and (4) the facility will be a truss spar platform.

We conclude that the risk of allision to the facility and the potential for loss of life and damage to the environment resulting from such an accident warrants the establishment of this proposed safety zone. The proposed rule would significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills and natural gas releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Gulf of Mexico. This proposed regulation is issued pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 U.S.C. 1333 as set out in the authority citation for 33 CFR part 147.

The proposed safety zone would encompass the area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on the Mad Dog's structure outer edge. No vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in this proposed safety zone except the following: an attending vessel; a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing; or a vessel authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District Commander.

This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed safety zone will not overlap any of the safety fairways within the Gulf of Mexico.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the Mad Dog Truss Spar Platform is located far offshore, few privately owned fishing vessels and recreational boats/yachts operate in the area and alternate routes are available for those vessels. Use of an alternate route may cause a vessel to incur a delay of 4 to 10 minutes in arriving at their destinations depending on how fast the vessel is traveling. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects the impact of this proposed rule on small entities to be minimal.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies 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 proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LT Kevin Lynn, Project Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, telephone (504) 589-6271.

This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed 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 proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1 paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant environmental impact as described in NEPA.

A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit IA. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90-days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA.

EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.

EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for residues of the herbicide alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon, disulfoton, and pirimiphos-methyl, and the fungicide vinclozolin because the specific tolerances correspond to commodities which are either no longer considered to be significant livestock feed items or which have restrictions against feeding to livestock, or to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the United States. It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.

1. Alachlor. Active registrations for use of the herbicide alachlor have restrictions against feeding peanut forage; peanut, hay; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay to livestock. Also, peanut forage is no longer considered a significant livestock feed item. The restrictions against the feeding of alachlor treated soybean forage and hay for all alachlor products occurred with the June 22, 1994 cancellation of two registrations which had lacked the restriction. These cancellations had followed publication of a notice in the Federal Register of March 17, 1994 (59 FR 12599) (FRL-4764-1) which announced EPA's receipt of requests to voluntarily cancel certain registrations. The restrictions against the feeding of alachlor treated peanut forage and hay for all alachlor products have been on labels since 1993.

The tolerances for peanut forage, peanut hay, soybean forage, and soybean hay were recommended by the Agency for revocation in the 1998 Alachlor RED. A printed copy of the Alachlor RED may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or (703) 605-6000; internet athttp://www.ntis.gov/. An electronic copy of the Alachlor RED is available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

Therefore, because there is no longer a need for them, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.249 for residues of alachlor and its metabolites on peanut, forage; peanut, hay; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay.

2. Carbaryl. Because flax straw is no longer a regulated feed item (no longer considered a raw agricultural commodity (RAC) of flax), the tolerance is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) for residues of carbaryl, including its hydrolysis product 1-naphthol, calculated as 1-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate, in or on flax, straw.

Because bean forage and bean hay are no longer considered significant livestock feed items, the tolerances are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) for residues of carbaryl, including its hydrolysis product 1-naphthol, calculated as l-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate, in or on bean, forage and bean, hay.

Because pineapple bran is no longer a regulated feed item (no longer considered a RAC of pineapple), the tolerance is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(4) for residues of carbaryl in or on pineapple bran. Note, the separate tolerance on pineapple is maintained.

3. Diazinon. There have been no registered uses of diazinon on coffee beans and dandelions since 1995 and 1991, respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.153(a)(1) for residues of the insecticide diazinon (O,O-diethyl O-[6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4-pyrimidinyl]phosphorothioate) in or on coffee bean and dandelion, leaves.

4. Disulfoton. There have been no registered uses of disulfoton on hops since 1991. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.183(a) for the combined residues of the insecticide O,O-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate and its cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites, calculated as demeton, in or on hop, dried cones.

5. Pirimiphos-methyl. There have been no registered uses of pirimiphos-methyl on kiwifruits for at least 10-years. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.409(a)(1) for the combined residues of the insecticide pirimiphos-methyl, O-[2- diethylamino-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate, the metabolite O-[2-ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-yl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate and, in free and conjugated form, the metabolites 2-diethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol), 2-ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol, and 2-amino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol in or on kiwifruit.

In 2001, EPA published an Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for pirimiphos-methyl and made a determination that pirimiphos-methyl residues of concern do not concentrate in wheat flour. Because the tolerance is no longer needed, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.409(a)(2) for residues of pirimiphos-methyl and its metabolites in or on wheat flour as a result of application to stored wheat grain.

A printed copy of the pirimiphos-methyl IRED may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or (703) 605-6000; internet at http://www.ntis.gov/. An electronic copy of the pirimiphos-methyl IRED is available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

6. Vinclozolin. In the Federal Register notice of August 22, 2001 (66 FR 44134) (FRL-6795-7), EPA announced use cancellations for certain vinclozolin registrations, including uses of the fungicide vinclozolin on onions and raspberries with a last date for legal use as December 15, 2001. EPA believes that there has been sufficient time for treated commodities to have cleared the channels of trade. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.380(a) for the combined residues of the fungicide vinclozolin and its metabolites containing the 3,5-dichloroaniline moiety in or on onion, dry bulb and raspberry.

A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on RACs and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-70, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on RACs and processed foods (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of the FFDCA. Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. et seq.). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States.

EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore, no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.

Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to cover imported commodities.

Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency determines that additional information is reasonably required to support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.

EPA is proposing that revocation of these tolerances become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register because their associated uses have been canceled for several years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is presented with other information and that information is verified, the Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that: (1) The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.

By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of February 14, 2005, EPA has reassessed over 7,140 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a total of 15 tolerances of which 9 would be counted as tolerance reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods.

EPA is working to ensure that the United States tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support of June 1, 2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “Federal Register--Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action (i.e., tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its available data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes that there is a reasonable international supply of food not treated with canceled pesticides. Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dars/transf.htm.

This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The proposed rule removes DFARS Appendix D, Component Breakout. Appendix D contains DoD procedures for breakout of components of end items for future acquisitions. This text will be relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi. A policy statement on component breakout is added at DFARS 207.105(b)(2)(ii)(70).

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the text in DFARS Appendix D, Component Breakout, relates primarily to DoD responsibilities for review of items for component breakout. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D071.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR Part 207 and Appendix D to Chapter 2 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 207 and Appendix D to subchapter I continues to read as follows:

DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/transf.htm.

This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The proposed changes—

• Delete unnecessary text at DFARS 215.000, 215.204-1, 215.304(c)(ii), and 215.305(b).

• Delete text at DFARS 215.204-2 regarding line item identification requirements for contracts containing both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement line items. This text was proposed for addition to DFARS subpart 204.71, in the proposed rule published at 69 FR 35564 on June 25, 2004, under DFARS Case 2003-D009.

• Delete text at DFARS 215.303 and 215.304 containing procedures for preparation of source selection plans and examples of source selection evaluation factors. This text will be relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi.

• Update references to the clauses at FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, to reflect the current clause titles.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule makes no significant change to DoD contracting policy. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D077.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 215 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 215 continues to read as follows:

A. Background

DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/transf.htm.

This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation Initiative. The proposed changes include—

• Deletion of redundant or unnecessary text at DFARS 225.000, 225.171, 225.871-1(b), 225.7301(a)(1) through (3), and 225.7306.

• Deletion of text at DFARS 225.001, 225.504, 225.802, 225.870-1(d), 225.870-5, 225.870-7, 225.871-5, 225.872-4, 225.872-5(b) and (c), 225.872-6(c), 225.873-2, 225.902, 225.903, 225.7301(c) and (d), and 225.7302 containing internal DoD procedures, guidance, or information. This text will be relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi.

• Clarification of DFARS text as follows:

• 225.401-70—Addition of a statutory reference.

• 225.408—Clarification that the exception from FAR 25.408(a)(4) for overseas acquisitions applies only to the requirement for submission of offers in U.S. dollars.

• 225.701—Expansion of cross-reference to restrictions on contracting with firms owned or controlled by foreign governments that support terrorism (from 209.104-1(g)(i) to 209.104-1(g)).

• 225.802-70—Addition of a reference to the Army in Europe Regulation 715-9, for procedures for work performed in Germany.

• 225.871-6—Clarification that property that is jointly acquired by the members of a NATO cooperative project may be disposed of in accordance with the terms of the cooperative project agreement, without regard to any laws of the United States applicable to the disposal of property owned by the United States.

• 225.7003—Clarification that the waiver procedures in 225.7003 apply only if specifically authorized by reference elsewhere in subpart 225.70.

• 225.7303-2(a)(3) and 225.7307—Addition of cross-references.

• 225.7501(a)(2)(iii)—Deletion of a reference to DoD Directive, 4120.3, Defense Standardization and Specification Program, which was cancelled in 1991.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule makes no significant change to DoD contracting policy. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D008.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 continues to read as follows:

This proposed rule removes DFARS 225.7008, Restrictions on totally enclosed lifeboat survival systems, and the corresponding contract clause at DFARS 252.225-7039. These restrictions implement Section 8124 of the Fiscal Year 1994 DoD Appropriations Act (Public Law 103-139), Section 8093 of the Fiscal Year 1995 DoD Appropriations Act (Public Law 103-335), and 10 U.S.C. 2534. Both appropriations act provisions state that none of the funds appropriated in “this or any other Act” could be used for the purchase of a totally enclosed lifeboat and associated davits and winches, if less than 50 percent of the entire system's components are manufactured in the United States, and if less than 50 percent of the labor in the manufacture and assembly of the entire system is performed in the United States.

There is a presumption that any provision in an annual appropriations act is effective only for that fiscal year, unless permanency is clearly indicated by words of futurity, or the provision is of a general nature, bearing no relation to the object of the appropriations. At the time of implementation of the restrictions on acquisition of totally enclosed lifeboat systems in the DFARS, DoD interpreted the phrase “this or any other Act” to impart futurity to the restrictions on acquisition of totally enclosed lifeboat systems. DoD has reevaluated this interpretation and has determined that the appropriations act provisions upon which the DFARS coverage is based were not permanent legislation. This position is supported by review of case law, including a U.S. Comptroller General decision of September 16, 1987, B-228838, in which the General Accounting Office held that language such as “this or any other Act” does not indicate futurity.

10 U.S.C. 2534(a) restricts the acquisition of totally enclosed lifeboats that are components of naval vessels. Since this restriction impacts only the Navy, and 10 U.S.C. 2534(h) specifies that DoD may not use contract clauses or certifications, but must use management and oversight techniques, to implement this restriction, DFARS coverage for implementation of this restriction is considered unnecessary.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the domestic source restrictions of 10 U.S.C. 2534 still apply to the acquisition of totally enclosed lifeboats that are components of naval vessels. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2004-D034.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 continues to read as follows:

A. Background

DFARS Transformation is a major DoD initiative to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS. The objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process, while allowing the acquisition workforce the flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/transf.htm.

This proposed rule is a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative. The proposed changes—

• Delete unnecessary text at DFARS 243.102, 243.105(a)(ii), 243.107, and 243.204-71.

• Delete obsolete text at DFARS 243.105(a)(i).

• Update text at DFARS 243.107-70 for consistency with the requirements of the clause at DFARS 252.249-7002, Notification of Anticipated Contract Termination or Reduction.

• Clarify procedures at DFARS 243.204-70 for determining if a request for equitable contract adjustment meets the dollar threshold for requiring contractor certification.

• Delete text at DFARS 243.170, 243.171, and 243.204 containing procedures for identification of foreign military sales requirements, for obligation or deobligation of contract funds, and for review and definitization of contract change orders. This text will be relocated to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule makes no significant change to DoD contracting policy. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D024.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 243 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 243 continues to read as follows:

Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA).

On May 28, 1998, NMFS published in the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final regulations, effective July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP).

In November 2002, ICCAT recommended a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of BFT for the United States in the western Atlantic management area of 1,489.6 metric tons (mt), effective beginning in 2003 and continuing in subsequent fishing years until revised by ICCAT. Also in the 2002 recommendation, ICCAT allocated 25 mt annually to account for incidental catch of BFT by pelagic longline fisheries directed on other species “in the vicinity of the management boundary area.” This area was defined in the 2003 BFT annual specification rulemaking process as the Northeast Distant statistical area (NED) (68 FR 56783, October 2, 2003). The TAC of 1,489.6 mt is inclusive of the annual 25 mt pelagic longline set-aside in the NED. The initial specifications within this proposed rule are published in accordance with the 1999 FMP and are necessary to implement the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, as required by ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This proposed rule would: (1) establish initial quota specifications consistent with the BFT rebuilding program as set forth in the 1999 FMP by allocating the 2002 ICCAT-recommended quota for the 2005 fishing year (June 1, 2005—May 31, 2006); and (2) establish the General category effort controls, including time-period subquotas and restricted fishing days (RFDs), for the 2005 fishing season.

NMFS is also seeking public comment on options for achieving ICCAT's recommended four-year average 8 percent tolerance on harvest of school BFT. As a method for limiting fishing mortality on school size BFT, ICCAT adopted an annual 8 percent tolerance limit in 1991, and in the 1998 rebuilding plan modified the tolerance to be calculated as a four-year average. The 2005 fishing year is the third year in the current four year period. Landings of school BFT in 2003 were approximately 138 mt, which is approximately 9.3 percent of the base quota for that year, and preliminary figures for 2004 indicate that school landings were greater than 2003 school landings. Since landings of school BFT for the first half of the four year period have exceeded 8 percent, landings for the second half must be less than 8 percent to achieve an overall average of 8 percent or below. NMFS is considering options other than providing the full school subquota for the 2005 fishery, and requests public comment on potential options for achieving the 8 percent target, including the following: (1) defer any action until the final year of the four year period (2006); (2) reallocate all or a portion of the 2005 school subquota to the large school/small medium subquota for 2005; (3) maintain the default Angling category retention limit of one fish (in any recreational size class, i.e., school, large school/small medium) per vessel per day for the entire 2005 season; or (4) prohibit landing of school BFT in 2005 and carry over the subquota to 2006.

After consideration of public comment, NMFS will issue final initial quota specifications and effort controls and publish them in the Federal Register, along with NMFS' response to those comments. The specifications and effort controls may subsequently be adjusted during the course of the fishing year, consistent with the provisions of the 1999 FMP, and will be published in the Federal Register.

NMFS acknowledges that a number of other issues regarding the domestic management of BFT have been discussed during recent years. For instance, adjustment of domestic quota allocation percentages and General category time-period subquotas were raised as issues in a Petition for Rulemaking submitted by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (see Notice of Receipt of Petition, 67 FR 69502, November 18, 2002). These issues were discussed at the 2003 HMS Advisory Panel (AP) meeting held in Silver Spring, MD, and most recently at public scoping meetings regarding the development of the consolidated HMS FMP. Other issues have been addressed in separate rulemakings. For instance, at the end of 2003, a final rule was published (68 FR 74504, December 24, 2003) that: (1) extended the General category season from December 31 to January 31, (2) established a Harpoon category end date of November 15 (or when the quota is reached, whichever comes first), (3) adjusted the Harpoon category tolerance limits for large medium BFT, and (4) adjusted the Purse Seine category opening date and large medium BFT tolerance limits. Additional issues may be addressed in the consolidated HMS FMP which is being developed during a current FMP amendment process (68 FR 40907, July 9, 2003) or in another future rulemaking.

NMFS has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) which present and analyze anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of several alternatives for each of the major issues contained in this proposed rule. The complete list of alternatives and their analysis is provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, and is not repeated here in its entirety. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

The 1999 FMP and its implementing regulations established baseline percentage quota shares for the domestic fishing categories. These percentage shares were based on allocation procedures that NMFS developed over several years. The baseline percentage quota shares established in the 1999 FMP for fishing years beginning June 1, 1999, to the present are as follows: General category—47.1 percent; Harpoon category—3.9 percent; Purse Seine category—18.6 percent; Angling category—19.7 percent; Longline category—8.1 percent; Trap category—0.1 percent; and Reserve category—2.5 percent. The 2002 ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT quota of 1,464.6 mt, not including the annual 25 mt set aside for pelagic longline vessels, would be allocated in accordance with these percentages. However, in addition to the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, quota allocations are adjusted based on overharvest or underharvest from prior fishing year's activity and on U.S. data on dead discards as they relate to the ICCAT dead discard allowance. Each of these adjustments is discussed below and then applied to the results of the above percentage shares to determine the 2005 fishing year proposed initial quota specifications.

The current ICCAT BFT quota recommendation allows, and U.S. regulations require, the addition or subtraction, as appropriate, of any underharvest or overharvest in a fishing year to the following fishing year, provided that the total of the adjusted category quotas does not result in overharvest of the total annual BFT quota and remains consistent with all applicable ICCAT recommendations, including restrictions on landings of school BFT. Therefore, NMFS proposes to adjust the 2005 fishing year quota specifications for the BFT fishery to account for underharvest or overharvest in the 2004 fishing year.

Overall U.S. landings figures for the 2004 fishing year are still preliminary and may be updated before these 2005 fishing year specifications are finalized. Should adjustments to the final initial 2005 BFT quota specifications be required based on final 2004 BFT landing figures, NMFS will publish the adjustments in the Federal Register. For the 2004 fishing year, NMFS has preliminarily determined that General category landings were lower than the adjusted General category quota by approximately 16.0 mt; that Harpoon category landings were less than the adjusted Harpoon category quota by approximately 11.5 mt; that Longline category landings were less than the adjusted Longline category quota by approximately 85.3 mt; that Angling category landing estimates were in excess of the adjusted Angling category quota by approximately 59.4 mt; and that Purse Seine category landings were less than the adjusted Purse Seine category quota by approximately 257.6 mt. Regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(9)(i) require that Purse Seine category underharvests or overharvests be subtracted from or added to each individual vessel's quota allocation, as appropriate. Based on the estimated amount of Reserve that NMFS maintains for the landing of BFT taken during ongoing scientific research projects and/or potential overharvests in certain categories, NMFS estimates that 298.3 mt of Reserve remains from the 2004 fishing year. This remaining Reserve quota will be used in part to address the Angling category overharvest and the rest divided between the General and Harpoon categories in proportion to the tonnage transferred out of these categories to the Reserve category in 2004, and in consideration of the number of permit holders participating in each of these respective fisheries, and the Reserve category. For categories with under or overharvests from the 2004 fishing year, these initial specifications will subtract the overharvest from, or add the underharvest to, the same quota category for the 2005 fishing year.

As part of the BFT rebuilding program, ICCAT recommends an allowance for dead discards. The U.S. dead discard allowance is 68 mt. Dead discard estimates for 2004 are not yet available, so the estimate for the 2003 calendar year is used as a proxy to calculate the amount to be added to, or subtracted from, the U.S. BFT landings quota for 2005. The 2003 calendar year preliminary estimate of U.S. dead discards, as reported per the longline discards calculated from logbook tallies, adjusted as warranted when observer counts in quarterly/geographic stratum exceeded logbook reports, totaled 52.4 mt. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are unavailable at this time, and thus, are not included in this calculation. As U.S. fishing activity is estimated to have resulted in fewer dead discards than its allowance, the ICCAT recommendation and U.S. regulations state that the United States may add one half of the difference between the amount of dead discards and the allowance (i.e., 68.0 mt − 52.4 mt = 15.6 mt, 15.6 mt/2 = 7.8 mt) to its total allowed landings for the following fishing year, to individual fishing categories, or to the Reserve category. NMFS proposes to allocate the 7.8 mt to the Reserve category quota to assist in covering potential overharvests and provide for inseason adjustments for the upcoming fishing year.

In accordance with the 2002 ICCAT quota recommendation, the ICCAT recommendation regarding the dead discard allowance, the HMS FMP percentage shares for each of the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(9)(ii), NMFS proposes initial quota specifications for the 2005 fishing year as follows: General category—908.3 mt; Harpoon category—90.0 mt; Purse Seine category—530.0 mt; Angling category—288.6 mt; Longline category—228.9 mt; and Trap category—3.8 mt. Additionally, 59.4 mt would be allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, including potentially providing for a late season General category fishery, or allocated to cover scientific research collection and potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category.

Based on the above proposed initial specifications, the Angling category quota of 288.6 mt would be further subdivided as follows: School BFT—117.2 mt, with 45.1 mt to the northern area (north of 39°18′ N. latitude), 50.4 mt to the southern area (south of 39°18′ N. latitude), plus 21.7 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT—164.8 mt, with 77.8 mt to the northern area and 87.0 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT—6.6 mt, with 2.2 mt to the northern area and 4.4 mt to the southern area.

The 2002 ICCAT recommendation includes an annual 25 mt set-aside quota to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the vicinity of the management area boundary and referred to as the NED hereafter. This set-aside quota is in addition to the overall incidental longline quota to be subdivided in accordance to the North/South allocation percentages mentioned below. Thus, the proposed Longline category quota of 228.9 mt would be subdivided as follows: 58.1 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude and 106.1 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude, and 64.7 mt (39.7 mt from 2004 + 25.0 mt for 2005) to account for bycatch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. The bycatch allocation by ICCAT for pelagic longline vessels in the NED would be allocated to the Longline north subcategory. Accounting for landings under this additional quota would be maintained separately from other landings under the Longline north subcategory. Finally, regulations regarding BFT target catch requirements for pelagic longline vessels within the NED do not apply until the landings equal the available set-aside quota (§ 635.23(f)(3)). After the available quota has been landed, target catch requirements at § 635.23(f)(1) will then apply.

For the last several years, NMFS has implemented General category time-period subquotas to increase the likelihood that fishing would continue throughout the entire General category season. The subquotas are consistent with the objectives of the 1999 FMP and are designed to address concerns regarding the allocation of fishing opportunities, to assist with distribution and achievement of optimum yield, to allow for a late season fishery, and to improve market conditions and scientific monitoring.

The regulations implementing the 1999 FMP divide the annual General category quota into three time-period subquotas as follows: 60 percent for June-August, 30 percent for September, and 10 percent for October-January. These percentages would be applied to the adjusted 2005 coastwide quota for the General category of 908.3 mt, minus 10.0 mt reserved for the New York Bight set aside fishery. Therefore, of the available 898.3 mt coastwide quota, 539.0 mt would be available in the period beginning June 1 and ending August 31, 2005; 269.5 mt would be available in the period beginning September 1 and ending September 30, 2005; and 89.8 mt would be available in the period beginning October 1, 2005, and ending January 31, 2006.

In addition to time-period subquotas, NMFS also has implemented General category RFDs to extend the General category fishing season. The RFDs are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas and provide additional fine scale inseason flexibility. For the 2005 fishing year, NMFS proposes a series of solid blocks of RFDs to extend the General category for as long as possible through the October through January time-period.

Therefore, NMFS proposes that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category would be prohibited from fishing, including catch-and-release and tag-and-release, for BFT of all sizes on the following days: all Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays from November 18, 2005, through January 31, 2006, and November 24, 2005, inclusive, while the fishery is open. These proposed RFDs would improve distribution of fishing opportunities during the late season without increasing BFT mortality.

This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has preliminarily determined that the regulations contained in this proposed rule are necessary to implement the recommendations of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic HMS fisheries.

The purpose of this proposed action is to: (1) implement the 2002 ICCAT recommendation regarding the BFT quota, by proposing 2005 specifications for the BFT fishery that allocates the quota among domestic fishing categories, including 25 mt of BFT quota to the Longline category; and, (2) implement General category effort controls.

NMFS has prepared an IRFA to analyze the impacts on small entities of the alternatives for establishing 2005 fishing year BFT quotas for all domestic fishing categories and General category effort controls. The analysis for the IRFA assesses the impacts of the various alternatives on the vessels that participate in the BFT fisheries, all of which are considered small entities. In order to do this, NMFS has estimated the average impact that the alternative to establish the 2005 BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on individual categories and the vessels within those categories.

As noted above, the 2002 ICCAT recommendation increased the BFT quota allocation to 1,489.6 mt, to be redistributed to the domestic fishing categories based on the allocation percentages established in the 1999 FMP, as well as a set-aside quota of 25 mt to account for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline swordfish and BAYS fisheries in the NED. Both these quota modifications were established in the 2003 and 2004 specifications. In 2004, the annual gross revenues from the commercial BFT fishery were approximately $5.2 million. There are approximately 29,401 vessels that are permitted to land and sell BFT under four BFT quota categories (including charter/headboat vessels). The commercial categories and their 2004 gross revenues are General ($4,346,814), Harpoon ($317,104), Purse Seine ($231,791), and Longline ($305,180). The analysis for the IRFA assumes that each vessel within a category will have similar catch and gross revenues. While this may not be true, the analyses are sufficient to show the relative impact of the various preferred alternatives on vessels.

For the allocation of BFT quota among domestic fishing categories, NMFS analyzed a no action alternative and Alternative two (preferred alternative) which would implement the 2002 ICCAT recommendation. Alternative two included several options for reducing catch of school BFT to stay within the four-year 8 percent tolerance limit required by ICCAT. NMFS considered a third alternative that would have allocated the 2002 ICCAT recommendation in a manner other than that designated in the 1999 FMP that was meant to address issues regarding specific set-asides and allocations for fishing groups that are not currently considered in the 1999 FMP. However, since the third alternative could have resulted in a de facto sub-period quota reallocation, an FMP amendment would be necessary for its implementation, and therefore it would not be practicable and was not further analyzed. NMFS has initiated the development of the consolidated HMS FMP (68 FR 40907, July 9, 2003) in a concurrent rulemaking, to consider sub-period quota allocations in the BFT fishery, among other things.

As noted above, alternative two would implement the 2002 ICCAT recommendation in accordance with the 1999 FMP and consistent with ATCA. Under ATCA, the United States is obligated to implement ICCAT-approved quota recommendations. The preferred alternative would apply this quota and have positive impacts for fishermen. The no action alternative would keep the quota at pre-2002 ICCAT recommendation levels (i.e., 77.6 mt less) and would not be consistent with the purpose and need for this action and the 1999 FMP. It would maintain economic impacts to the United States and to local economies at a distribution and scale similar to 2002 or recent prior years, but would deny fishermen additional fishing opportunities as recommended by the 2002 ICCAT recommendation and as mandated by ATCA.

Alternative two also includes several options for reducing catch of school bluefin tuna, including: (1) taking no action until 2006; (2) reallocating all or a portion of the 2005 school subquota to the large school/small medium subquota for 2005; (3) maintaining the default Angling category retention limit of one fish per vessel per day for the entire 2005 season; or (4) prohibiting landing of school BFT in 2005 and carrying over the subquota to 2006. Because of limited economic data regarding recreational HMS fisheries, economic impacts of the various options cannot be quantified. However, the options that include some reduction in school BFT landings in 2005 (options 2, 3 and 4) could have minor negative economic impacts for 2005. Any modest economic impacts to charter/headboat or recreational fisheries as a result of option 2 could be mitigated by the shift of quota to the large school/small medium subquota. In addition, the apparent recent increase in school BFT landings could indicate an increase in abundance of young BFT, some of which could be recruited into the large school/small medium size class in 2005, thus mitigating any reduction in school BFT from Options 2 or 4. Impacts from Option 3 are less likely to be mitigated by shifts in quota or abundance since the one fish retention limit would be in place for the entire season, and the small retention limit could have greater impacts on charter/headboat fisheries than the other options. Under Option 1, if action is deferred until 2006, then there would not be any impact in the coming fishing year; however, more severe measures may be required to reduce school harvest in 2006.

For the General category effort controls, two alternatives were considered: the preferred alternative to designate RFDs according to a schedule published in the initial BFT specifications and the no action alternative (no RFDs published with the initial specifications, but implemented during the season as needed). In the past, when catch rates have been high, the use of RFDs (preferred alternative) has had positive economic consequences by avoiding oversupplying the market and extending the season as late as possible. Implementing RFDs to extend the late season may have negative economic impacts to northern area fishermen who choose to travel to the southern area during the late season fishery. Travel and lodging costs may be greater if the season were extended over a greater period of time as proposed under the preferred alternative. Those additional costs could be mitigated if the ex-vessel price of BFT stays high, as is intended under this alternative. Without RFDs, travel costs may be less because of a shorter season; however, the market could be oversupplied and ex-vessel prices could fall. Overall, extending the season as late as possible would enhance the likelihood of increasing participation by southern area fishermen, increase access to the fishery over a greater range of the fish migration, and is expected to provide better than average ex-vessel prices with an overall increase in gross revenues.

The no action alternative would not implement any RFDs with publication of the initial specifications but rather would use inseason management authority established in the 1999 FMP to implement RFDs during the season, should catch rates warrant. This alternative is most beneficial during a season of low catch rates and would have positive economic consequences if slow catch rates were to persist. Overall, the season would regulate itself and fishermen could choose when to fish or not based on their own preferences. However, even with low catch rates and no RFDs, it is unlikely that there will be enough quota in the General category to sustain an extended late season commercial handgear fishery off south Atlantic states. Thus, if the 2005 season is similar to the 2003 and 2004 fisheries, there may be negative economic impacts to fishermen in southern states unless inseason management actions are taken to slow down the late season fishery.

None of the proposed alternatives in this document would result in additional reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, or monitoring requirements for the public. This proposed rule has also been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

NMFS prepared a draft EA for this proposed rule, and the AA has preliminarily concluded that there would be no significant impact on the human environment if this proposed rule were implemented. The EA presents analyses of the anticipated impacts of these proposed regulations and the alternatives considered. A copy of the EA and other analytical documents prepared for this proposed rule, are available from NMFS via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES).

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule contains no new collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to, a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

On September 7, 2000, NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all HMS commercial fisheries under Section 7 of the ESA. A BiOp, issued June 14, 2001, concluded that continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened sea turtle species under NMFS jurisdiction. This BiOp also concluded that the continued operation of the purse seine and handgear fisheries may adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction. NMFS has implemented the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) required by this BiOp.

Subsequently, based on the management measures in several proposed rules, a new BiOp on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery was issued on June 1, 2004. The 2004 BiOp found that the continued operation of the fishery was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles, but was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea turtles. The 2004 BiOp identified RPAs necessary to avoid jeopardizing leatherbacks, and listed the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and terms and conditions necessary to authorize continued take as part of the revised incidental take statement. On July 6, 2004, NMFS published a final rule (69 FR 40734) implementing additional sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality mitigation measures for all Atlantic vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard. NMFS is working on implementing the other RPMs in compliance with the 2004 BiOp. On August 12, 2004, NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (69 FR 49858) to request comments on potential regulatory changes to further reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of sea turtles, as well as comments on the feasibility of framework mechanisms to address unanticipated increases in sea turtle interactions and mortalities, should they occur. NMFS will undertake additional rulemaking and non-regulatory actions, as required, to implement any management measures that are required under the 2004 BiOp. The measures proposed in this action are not expected to have adverse impacts on protected species. Although the 2002 ICCAT recommendation increased the BFT quota, which may result in a slight increase in effort, NMFS does not expect this slight increase to alter current fishing patterns. The options to reduce mortality of school BFT are expected to have negligible ecological impacts and not adversely impact protected species. The specific action to allocate additional BFT quota to the Longline category would not alter current impacts on threatened or endangered species. The action would not modify fishing behavior or gear type, nor would it expand fishing effort because BFT are only allowed to be retained incidentally. Thus, the proposed action would not be expected to change previously analyzed endangered species or marine mammal interaction rates or magnitudes, or substantially alter current fishing practices or bycatch mortality rates.

The area in which this proposed action is planned has been identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for species managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, and the HMS Management Division of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries at NMFS. It is not anticipated that this action will have any adverse impacts to EFH and, therefore, no consultation is required.

NMFS has determined that the list of actions in this proposed rule are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the coastal states in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean that have Federally approved coastal zone management programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The proposed rule establishing quota specifications and effort controls will be submitted to the responsible state agencies for their review under Section 307 of the CZMA.