Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within 10 CFR part 72, entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks” containing procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on December 22, 1994 (59 FR 65898), that approved the Standardized NUHOMS ® System (NUHOMS ® -24P and -52B) cask designs and added them to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1004. Amendments 3, 5, and 6, respectively, added the -61BT, -32PT, -24PHB designs to the Standardized NUHOMS ® System.

On April 18, 2006, and as supplemented on June 21, 2006, the certificate holder (Transnuclear, Inc.) submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1004 to permit a Part 72 licensee to store Framatome-ANP, Version 9x9-2 fuel assemblies (FANP9 9x9-2) in the NUHOMS ® -61BT dry shielded canister. No other changes to the Standardized NUHOMS ® System design were requested in this application. The NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request and found that an acceptable safety margin is maintained. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that there continues to be reasonable assurance that public health and safety and the environment will be adequately protected.

This direct final rule revises the Standardized NUHOMS® System cask design listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 9 to CoC No. 1004. The amendment consists of changes to the TS that will allow for the addition of the FANP9 9x9-2 fuel assemblies as approved contents for storage in the NUHOMS®-61BT dry shielded canister. The particular TS which are changed are identified in the NRC staff's SER for Amendment No. 9.

The amended Standardized NUHOMS® System, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TS, and NRC regulations, will meet the requirements of Part 72; thus, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured.

Certificate No. 1004 is revised by adding the effective date of Amendment No. 9.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 9 to CoC No. 1004 and does not include other aspects of the Standardized NUHOMS® System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on April 17, 2007. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by March 5, 2007, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this Federal Register . The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or TS.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Standardized NUHOMS® System design listed in § 72.214 (List of NRC-approved spent fuel storage cask designs). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

The Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), directed that the Government's documents be in clear and accessible language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES above.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment and, on the basis of this environmental assessment, has made a finding of no significant impact. This rule will amend the CoC for the Standardized NUHOMS® System within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. The amendment will modify the CoC by revising TS 1.2.1 and 1.2.14 to add the FANP9 9x9-2 fuel assemblies as approved contents for storage in the NUHOMS®-61BT dry shielded canister. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail jmm2@nrc.gov .

This direct final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, Approval Number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On December 22, 1994 (59 FR 65898), the NRC issued an amendment to part 72 that approved the Standardized NUHOMS® System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214. On April 18, 2006, and as supplemented on June 21, 2006, the certificate holder, Transnuclear, Inc., submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1004 to permit a part 72 licensee to use the FANP9 9x9-2 fuel assemblies in the NUHOMS®-61BT dry shielded canister.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 9 and to require any part 72 licensee seeking to use Amendment No. 9 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and TN. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.

Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to CE255.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On February 15, 2005, Aviation Technology Group (ATG); 8001 South InterPort Boulevard, Suite 310; Englewood, Colorado 80112-5951, applied for a type certificate for their new Model 100 Javelin airplane in accordance with the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR, part 23. The Javelin is a two-place, twin engine, turbofan-powered light jet airplane with a planned maximum operating altitude of 45,000 feet. Part 23 regulations in effect on the date of ATG's application do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for a small, high performance jet airplane such as the Javelin. In accordance with Small Airplane Directorate policy, the safety standards for flight performance, flight characteristics and operational limitations that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) finds necessary to establish an acceptable level of safety for this type of airplane are presented in this special condition.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR, part 21, § 21.17, ATG must show that the Model 100 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by Amendment 23-1 through 23-55 thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the ATG Model 100 series because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 100 must comply with the part 23 fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR, part 34 and the part 23 noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

ATG intends to certificate the Javelin in both utility and acrobatic categories. The ATG Javelin Model 100 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

• Two-place, tandem configuration.

• Maximum takeoff weight of approximately 6,900 pounds.

• Design cruise speed of 500 knots calibrated airspeed.

• Two Williams FJ33-4A-18M turbofan engines with dual channel FADEC controls.

• Major airframe components constructed of carbon fiber composite materials.

• Hydraulically boosted flight control system with floor-mounted control sticks.

• Integrated avionics including Avidyne displays, autopilot, and flight management. System.

Novel features on the ATG Model 100 include rear mounted turbine engines embedded in the fuselage, boosted controls, and high-speed, high-altitude acrobatic capability.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the ATG Model 100 series. Should ATG apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on ATG Model 100 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2002-20-07 R1, amendment 39-12940 (67 FR 67518, November 6, 2002). The existing AD applies to all Boeing Model 737 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2006 (71 FR 66474). That NPRM proposed to continue to require installation of a new rudder control system and changes to the adjacent systems to accommodate that new rudder control system. For certain airplanes, that NPRM proposed to add, among other actions, repetitive tests of the force fight monitor of the main rudder power control unit (PCU), repetitive tests of the standby hydraulic actuation system, and corrective action; as applicable. For those airplanes, that NPRM also proposed to add, among other actions, replacement of both input control rods of the main rudder PCU and the input control rod of the standby rudder PCU with new input control rods, as applicable, which would end the repetitive tests. For certain other airplanes, that NPRM proposed to add installation of an enhanced rudder control system in accordance with new service information.

Since we issued the NPRM, we have received a report of a fractured rod end on the input control rod of the standby rudder PCU on a Model 737-700 series airplane. This condition was discovered during accomplishment of an operational test of the standby hydraulic actuation system in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1280, dated May 25, 2006 (one of the actions specified in the NPRM). Investigation revealed that, although the input control rod had an existing crack of significant size, it ultimately fractured due to fatigue damage. Fatigue damage is caused by repetitive forces being applied (i.e., cyclic loading).

This finding of fatigue damage is not consistent with the results of our investigation that led to actions specified in the NPRM. The actions and compliance times specified in the NPRM were based on our finding that, while the input control rod may have been cracked during assembly, no significant loading was present to further degrade the integrity of the input control rod over time, causing it to fracture.

Therefore, we have determined that, for certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes on which the suspect input control rod of the standby rudder PCU was installed during production, the compliance times for the following actions in the NPRM will not detect and correct failure of the input control rod of the standby rudder PCU in a timely manner:

• The initial compliance time and repetitive intervals for the operational tests specified in paragraph (g)(1), and

• The threshold for the replacement of the input control rod of the standby rudder PCU specified in paragraph (g)(3).

Failure of one of the two input control rods of main rudder PCU, under certain conditions, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane; and failure of any combination of two input control rods of the main rudder PCU and/or standby rudder PCU could cause an uncommanded rudder hardover event and result in loss of control of the airplane.

As discussed in the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM, we have reviewed the following service information:

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

We provided the public the opportunity to submit comments regarding the NPRM and have considered the comments that have been received.

The Air Line Pilots Association and Boeing support the NPRM.

Delta and Southwest Airlines request that we issue a stand alone AD that addresses the control rod issues only instead of superseding AD 2002-20-07 R1. Delta states that a stand alone AD will minimize the amount of revisions to engineering authorizations (EAs). Delta points out that a supersedure AD would result in their revising four EAs whereas a stand alone AD would result in revising only one EA. Southwest Airlines states that a stand alone AD would be more cost effective because a supersedure AD results in document revision, record keeping, and computer tracking issues.

We do not agree. As explained in the “Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued” section of the NPRM, we have received a report of a fractured rod end on one of the two input control rods of the main rudder PCU on a Model 737-800 series airplane. The incident airplane had been modified to comply with the requirements of AD 2002-20-07 R1. We determined that accomplishment of the actions required by AD 2002-20-07 R1 introduces a new unsafe condition (i.e., failure of the input control rods of the rudder control system, which, under certain conditions, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane and/or loss of control of the airplane), and that a substantive change to that AD was necessary.

Our current policy specifies that, whenever a substantive change is made to an existing AD that imposes a new burden, we must supersede the AD. Substantive changes are those made to any instruction or reference that affects the substance of the AD. Substantive changes include part numbers, service bulletin and manual references, compliance times, applicability, methods of compliance, corrective action, inspection requirements, and effective dates. We consider the changes to the existing AD to be substantive. This superseding AD is assigned a new amendment number and new AD number, and the previous amendment is removed from the system. This procedure facilitates the efforts of principal maintenance inspectors in tracking ADs and ensuring that affected operators have incorporated the most recent changes into their maintenance programs.

With regard to paperwork changes required by affected operators, § 121.380(a)(2)(vi) (“Maintenance recording requirements”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.380(a)(2)(vi)), requires that persons holding an operating certificate and operating under part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations must keep “The current status of applicable airworthiness directives, including the date and methods of compliance * * *.” Whether an existing AD is superseded or a new stand alone AD is issued, the new AD is assigned a new AD number. In either case, the new AD is identified by its “new” AD number. In light of this, affected operators updating their maintenance records to indicate the current AD status would have to record a new AD number in both cases. Further, operators are always given credit for work previously performed according to the existing AD by means of the phrase in the compliance section of the AD that states, “* * * unless the actions have already been done.” Therefore, we have determined that a supersedure AD is appropriate.

If the AD does supersede AD 2002-20-07 R1, Southwest Airlines requests that the AD also supersede the following ADs:

• AD 95-06-53, amendment 39-9199 (60 FR 18981, April 14, 1995);

• AD 97-05-10, amendment 39-9954 (62 FR 9679, March 4, 1997); and

• AD 98-02-01, amendment 39-10283 (63 FR 1903, January 13, 1998).

Southwest Airlines states that these additional ADs were all listed in AD 2002-20-07 R1. Southwest Airlines states that if these changes are not made, operators will be required to report the status of obsolete ADs.

We do not agree. AD 2002-20-07 R1 revises AD 2002-20-07, amendment 39-12903 (67 FR 62341, October 7, 2002), and supersedes ADs 95-06-53, 97-05-10, and 98-02-01. As of November 12, 2002 (the effective date of AD 2002-20-07 R1), those ADs were effectively superseded (cancelled) and thus no further action is required in regard to those ADs.

Southwest Airlines also requests that AD 97-14-04, amendment 39-10061 (62 FR 35068, June 30, 1997), be added to the list of ADs in Table 1 of the NPRM.

We agree. Our intent was to retain all requirements of AD 2002-20-07 R1. AD 97-14-04 was included in paragraph (b) of AD 2002-20-07 R1. However, we inadvertently omitted it from Table 1 in paragraph (b) of the NPRM. Doing the action required by paragraph (f) or (h) of this AD ends the requirements of AD 97-14-04 and the other ADs identified in Table 1 of this AD. We have revised Table 1 accordingly.

Southwest Airlines requests that the applicability of the NPRM be revised to affect Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes (i.e., 737 next generation airplanes), line numbers 1 through 1947 only (no change requested for affected Model 737-100 through -500 series airplanes). Southwest Airlines states that the effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1279, dated June 20, 2006; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1280, dated May 25, 2006; indicate that 737 next generation airplanes with line numbers 1948 or higher have an enhanced rudder control system with the improved rods already installed. Southwest Airlines also states that it is a hardship to require AD reporting on airplanes that have been modified in production.

We do not agree with Southwest Airlines to exclude airplanes on which an enhanced rudder control system with new input control rods has been installed in production from the applicability of this AD. Paragraph (j) of this AD states, “As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an input control rod, P/N 251A3495-1, on any airplane.” All Model 737 airplanes, including those in production now and in the future, are subject to this requirement. Therefore, we have determined that the applicability of the AD is correct as proposed.

Southwest Airlines requests that paragraph (g) be revised to exclude airplanes for which maintenance records can conclusively show that the suspect rods have not been installed. Southwest Airlines states that some airplanes have had control rods replaced or modified with the latest kits.

We partially agree. We agree with Southwest Airlines that no further work is required by paragraph (g) for airplanes on which the input control rods have been replaced in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of this AD. We also find that no further work is required by paragraph (h) for airplanes on which the input control rods have been installed in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD. We have determined that those actions adequately address the identified unsafe condition of this AD related to the input control rods. However, we do not agree to revise this AD. Operators are given credit for work previously done by the means of the phrase in the “Compliance” section of the AD that states, “* * * unless the actions have already been done.” Therefore, in the case of this AD, if the actions required by paragraph (g)(4) or (h) of this AD (i.e., replacement of input control rods or installation of a new rudder control system) have been done in accordance with the service information identified in Table 4 or 5 of this AD, respectively, before the effective date of this AD, this AD does not require those actions to be repeated.

AirTran Airways supports the proposed actions described in the NPRM, but points out a discrepancy between the NPRM and a referenced service bulletin. AirTran Airways notes that paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of the NPRM is applicable to airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1, and Group 2, Configurations 1 and 2, in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1280, dated May 25, 2006. AirTran Airways states that the service bulletin does not contain any configurations for Group 2.

From this comment, we infer that AirTran Airways is requesting that we delete the reference to Configurations 1 and 2 for Group 2 specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(iv), (g)(2)(i), and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD (paragraph (g)(1)(iii) in the NPRM). We agree and have revised this AD accordingly.

Southwest Airlines states that it is impossible to install the enhanced rudder system without doing the concurrent requirements in paragraph (i) of the NPRM. Southwest Airlines notes that each of the service bulletins identified in Table 5 of the NPRM, except “[Boeing] [S]ervice [B]ulletin 737-55-1042,” is listed in the initial release of the primary service bulletins identified in Table 4 of the NPRM. Southwest Airlines believes it is impossible to trim the spar as illustrated in the primary service bulletins unless the trim was previously accomplished per “[Boeing] [S]ervice [B]ulletin 737-55-1042.” Southwest Airlines also believes that the NPRM validates this by not requiring rework other than for the discrepant control rods.

From this comment, we infer that Southwest Airlines is requesting that the concurrent requirements specified in paragraph (i) of the NPRM be deleted. Since Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1042 describes procedures unrelated to the subject of this AD, we also infer that Southwest Airlines meant to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1052, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2004 (referred to in paragraph (i)(2)(iv) of this AD as a concurrent requirement). We do not agree with Southwest Airlines to delete the concurrent requirements of this AD. Our current policy specifies that service information must be “published” (i.e., incorporation by reference (IBR)) if the AD mandates a method of compliance that is contained only in the referenced service information. As in the case of this AD, the concurrent requirement actions specified in Table 6 of the AD are contained only in the service information identified in that table, not in the primary service information identified in Table 5 of this AD. Therefore, we have made no change to this AD in this regard.

The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are issuing this AD to supersede AD 2002-20-07 R1. This AD supersedes AD 2002-20-07 R1 and retains the requirements of the existing AD. This AD also requires accomplishing the actions specified in the applicable service information identified previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and Certain Service Information.” For certain airplanes, this AD also requires suspending a certain Master Minimum Equipment List item, until all improperly heat-treated input control rods are replaced.

For certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes on which the suspect input control rod of the standby rudder PCU was installed during production, the compliance times for the following actions required by this AD are different (i.e., shorter intervals) than those specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1279, dated June 20, 2006; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1280, dated May 25, 2006:

• For the operational tests of the standby hydraulic actuation system: This AD specifies an initial compliance time of within 110 flight hours or 7 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and repetitive intervals of 110 flight hours or 7 days, whichever occurs later, whereas Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1280 specifies an initial compliance time of within 60 days and repetitive intervals of 500 flight hours.

• For the replacement of the input control rod of the standby rudder PCU: This AD specifies a compliance time of within 90 days after the effective date of this AD whereas Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1279 specifies a compliance time of 24 months.

As discussed previously in the “Discussion” section of this AD, the proposed compliance times for these actions may not detect and correct failure of the input control rod of the standby rudder PCU in a timely manner. While we do not yet have data on the growth rate of these cracks, we believe the revised compliance times described previously are adequate to ensure safety without imposing undue burdens on air commerce. In developing appropriate compliance times for these actions in this AD, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the operational tests and replacements. In consideration of these items, as well as the reported failures of the input control rods in service, we have determined that the compliance times in this AD will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the actions to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators.

As a result of the differences between the AD and certain service information described previously, we have revised the applicable compliance times in this AD and changed certain paragraph identifiers and tables and added others.

In certain places in the NPRM, we referred to the incorrect year of the issuance date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1280. The correct issuance date is May 25, 2006, not May 25, 2005. We have corrected this error in this AD.

Regarding the reduced compliance times described previously, an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.

Regarding the reduced compliance times described previously, this AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26323; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-150-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://lldms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this 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 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.

You may 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 Docket Management System receives them.

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71497). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that executive seats equipped with pedestal legs were produced using a material that deviates from the approved design data. As a consequence the pedestal legs may not perform as intended under emergency landing conditions. In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one time inspection to identify the Vendor Part Number (VPN) of the pedestal legs and the Serial Number (S/N) of the executive seat and the replacement of the pedestal legs if necessary.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

We estimate that this AD would affect about 394 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 work-hours per product to comply with the inspection requirement of this AD. In addition, we estimate this AD would affect about 59 seats and take about 1 work-hour per seat to comply with the parts replacement requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $15,760, or $40 per product for inspection and $4,720, or $80 per seat for parts replacement.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2006 (71 FR 64653). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the wing strut fitting and the replacement of corroded wing strut fittings with new retrofit wing strut fittings.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Clay Lacy asks if there is a planned hourly minimum or just calendar time for the compliance. He notes that he has a PC-6 that was built by Fairchild in 1967, has only 1,600 hours total time, and has always been hangared. Mr. Lacy added, “We have never detected any corrosion at any location.”

We are relying on the Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the state of design authority, and the manufacturer's (Pilatus) determination that calendar time compliance for this type of corrosion inspection is appropriate. The FOCA AD requires a one-time inspection, and the corresponding service bulletin (SB) states the required repetitive inspection will be included in Chapter 5 of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). Both initial and repetitive compliance times are specified in calendar time. We do not have information for this issue to correlate between Time-In-Service (TIS) and calendar time.

Clay Lacy states if possible he would like more information that prompted this proposed AD.

Further information on what prompted this proposed AD may be found in the Docket Management System (DMS). This action was initiated as a result of FOCA AD HB-2006-400. We have checked the DMS and this document is electronically available.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD, and take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

We estimate that this AD will affect about 49 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take 27 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,500 per wing per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $350,840 or $7,160 per product.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

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

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act, FDA issued an order on October 6, 2006, classifying into class III the Biosafe SA Sepax Cell Separation System and single use kits because this device is not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or to a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On November 1, 2006, Biosafe SA submitted to FDA a petition requesting classification of the Sepax Cell Separation System and single use kits under section 513(f)(2) of the act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA reviewed the petition in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are to be classified into class II if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the petition, FDA determined that the Biosafe SA Sepax Cell Separation System and single use kits, when used in the processing and the storage of cord blood, can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes that special controls, in addition to general controls, are adequate to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of this device and that there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such assurance.

This device is assigned the generic name “cord blood processing system and storage container.” It is identified as a device intended for use in the processing and the storage of cord blood. This device is a functionally closed processing system that includes containers, other soft goods, and a centrifugation system for cord blood concentration, and a final container for the cryopreservation and the storage of a cord blood product.

FDA has identified the risks to health associated with the use of a cord blood processing system and storage container. These risks include lack of biocompatible components; toxicity of residual chemical sterilants used to sterilize device components; toxicity of leached materials from or that permeate through plastic device components; insufficient mechanical strength of device containers, tubing, and seals resulting in integrity failure of the device; contamination; instability of soft goods over time; physical damage to or loss of the cord blood product; software failure; operator/user injury; electromagnetic interference; and electrical hazards.

FDA believes that the class II special controls guidance document will aid in mitigating the potential risks to health by providing recommendations for describing the device, validating performance characteristics, and labeling. The guidance document provides recommendations for fulfilling the premarket (510(k)) submission requirements for this device. FDA believes that the special controls guidance document, in addition to general controls, addresses the risks to health identified in the previous paragraph and provides reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a cord blood processing system and storage container. Therefore, on January 3, 2007, FDA issued an order to the petitioner classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying this device classification at 21 CFR 864.9900.

Following the effective date of this final classification rule, manufacturers submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for a cord blood processing system and storage container will need to address the issues covered in the special controls guidance. However, the manufacturer need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness.

Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of this type of device and, therefore, this type of device is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, before marketing the device, which contains information about the cord blood processing system and storage container they intend to market.

FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Executive order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because classification of this device into class II will relieve manufacturers of the cost of complying with the premarket approval requirements of section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e), and will not constitute a potential barrier to small competitors that may wish to enter the market in the future, the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $122 million, using the most current (2005) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies 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. Accordingly, FDA has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 is not required. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is publishing a notice announcing the availability of the guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Cord Blood Processing System and Storage Container.” FDA concludes that the special controls guidance document contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the OMB under the PRA and that have been approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under the regulations governing premarket notification submissions (21 CFR part 807, subpart E; OMB Control No. 0910-0120).

The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. This security zone is established as part of the ongoing response operations relating to the M/V TONG CHENG. The Unified Command ordered this emergency procedure as soon as it was deemed necessary but not in time to complete full notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, and the need for this temporary security zone was not determined until less than 30 days before the M/V TONG CHENG will require the protection provided by this rule. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the transit would occur before completion of the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, thereby jeopardizing the security of the people and property associated with the operation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The COTP finds this good cause to be the immediate need for a security zone to allay the waterborne security threats surrounding the M/V TONG CHENG's transit.

On December 26, 2006, M/V TONG CHENG suffered damage to the number 2 cargo hold at sea during heavy weather. Damage consisted of a 2.5 foot fracture in the port shell. The Cargo hold had taken on 21 feet of water. The Vessel was enroute to Cuba via the Panama Canal. The Vessel altered course towards Honolulu seeking entry to effect repairs.

Sector Honolulu formed a Unified Command with Customs and Border Protection, State of Hawaii and Responsible Party. Assets arranged under the Unified Command arrived on scene to conduct vessel damage assessment, source control, environmental assessment/mitigation and pollution investigation. Sector Honolulu coordinated with Marine Safety Center on vessel stability issues. The Unified Command plans to effect temporary repair of the hull damage in order to improve vessel stability for a safe transit to Honolulu Harbor for permanent repairs.

Due to the unknown duration of repairs, M/V TONG CHENG's actual arrival date and time will not be known in advance. The Coast Guard is establishing this security zone to ensure that the vessel is protected during its transit into Honolulu Harbor with as much public notice as possible.

This temporary security zone is effective from 12:01 a.m. (HST) on January 22, 2007, until 11:59 p.m. (HST) on February 18, 2007. It is located within the Honolulu Captain of the Port Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and covers all U.S. navigable waters extending 500 yards in all directions from M/V TONG CHENG, from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. The security zone moves with M/V TONG CHENG while in transit. The security zone becomes fixed when M/V TONG CHENG is anchored, position-keeping, or moored. The security zone is anticipated to be activated and enforced for just a few days during its four-week effective period, however operations are constrained by safety and security of the vessel and crew as well as the potential for damage to the environment from an oil spill. A broadcast notice to mariners will be issued to notify the public of this activation and enforcement period as soon as possible. M/V TONG CHENG will have a Coast Guard escort from entry into the Captain of the Port Honolulu Zone till it arrives at Honolulu Harbor or alternate anchorage designated by the Captain of the Port Honolulu.

The general regulations governing security zones contained in 33 CFR 165.33 apply. Entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative thereof. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this section to be made by broadcast notice to mariners. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other Captain of the Port representative permitted by law, may enforce the zone. The Captain of the Port may waive any of the requirements of this rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the security zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under § 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under § 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the limited duration of the zone, the limited geographic area affected by it, and its ability to move with the protected vessel.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We expect that there will be little or no impact to small entities due to the narrowly tailored scope of this security zone.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and either preempts State law or imposes a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 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 is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and “Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED)” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(iv) The word State means the State of Utah, unless the context indicates otherwise.

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

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

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

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

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

(d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

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

(f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

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

(h) Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.

The Utah Air Quality Board (AQB) held a public hearing on September 28, 2000, to address revisions to Utah's Administrative Procedures: adding R307-103, amending R307-120-8 and R307-415-6d, and deleting R307-102-3, R307-415-10 and R307-414-3. The AQB adopted the revisions on December 6, 2000, and they became State effective on December 7, 2000. Utah's Rule R307-103-2 was further revised at a public hearing held by the AQB on February 21, 2001, and was adopted by the AQB on April 4, 2001. Utah's Rule R307-103-2 became State effective on April 12, 2001. These SIP revisions were submitted by the Governor of Utah to us on August 15, 2001.

Based on a letter from Richard W. Sprott, Director, Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), to Richard Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, dated May 18, 2005, Utah's Rules R307-120-8, R307-415-6d, and R307-415-10 were submitted for our reference only and should not be incorporated into the federally approved SIP. Furthermore, Utah's Rule R307-103 has been withdrawn based on a letter from the Governor of Utah, dated November 3, 2006. Therefore, we are only proposing to approve the removal of Utah's rules R307-102-3 and R307-414-3 from Utah's federally approved SIP. We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have concluded that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

The Utah Air Quality Board (AQB) held a public hearing on May 18, 2006, to address revisions to Utah's Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS), R307-210. The revisions were adopted by the AQB and they became State effective on June 15, 2006. These revisions were submitted by the Governor of Utah to us on August 25, 2006.

We are approving the removal of Utah's Rule R307-102-3, “Administrative Procedures and Hearings,” from Utah's federally approved SIP. Rule R307-102-3 designates whether certain proceedings and actions are to be conducted formally or informally. We approved this rule into the SIP on July 6, 1999 (64 FR 36248). These provisions are not required by the CAA and are, therefore, not required to be in Utah's SIP. However, the state has now deleted rule R307-102-3 and we are approving its removal from the SIP.

We are approving the removal of Utah's Rule R307-414-3, “Administrative Procedures and Hearings,” from Utah's federally approved SIP. Rule R307-414-3 contains provisions on how to appeal the fee for UDAQ review of applications for new construction or modification requests. We approved this rule into the SIP on July 8, 1994 (59 FR 35036). The CAA does not require that such provisions be in Utah's SIP. The state has now deleted rule R307-414-3 and we are approving the removal from the SIP.

The August 25, 2006 submittal revises Utah's Rule R307-210, “Stationary Sources” by updating the incorporation by reference for new source performance standards (NSPS) to reflect updated versions of the federal regulations. R307-210 is the rule the State uses to implement our NSPS.

On November 8, 2006, we issued a letter delegating responsibility for all sources located, or to be located, in the State of Utah subject to the NSPS in 40 CFR part 60:

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any other applicable requirements of the Act. The revisions are administrative in nature, will not affect emissions, and will not interfere with requirements of the Act. Therefore, these revisions do not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or other applicable requirements of the Act.

EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the Governor of Utah on August 15, 2001. This SIP revision deletes rules R307-102-3, “Administrative Procedures and Hearings,” and R307-414-3, “Request for Review.” We are removing Utah's rules R307-102-3 and R307-414-3 from Utah's federally approved SIP. The Clean Air Act (CAA) does not require these rules to be in Utah's SIP. The specific changes being approved in this document are explained in more detail above (see III.A., and III.B.).

In addition, as requested by the Utah Governor with his August 25, 2006 submittal, we are providing notice that we granted delegation of authority to Utah on November 8, 2006, to implement and enforce the NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR part 60, effective as of July 1, 2005 (except subparts Cb, Cd, Cd, Ce, BBBB, and DDDD). However, the State's NSPS authorities do not include those authorities which cannot be delegated to the states, as indicated in the delegation letter to the state (see III.C.).

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective April 2, 2007 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by March 5, 2007. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 2, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

The information in this section is organized as follows:

A delisting petition is a request from a facility to the EPA or an authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. The facility petitions the EPA because it does not consider the wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.

In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria for which the EPA lists a waste are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for the listed waste.

In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present sufficient information for the EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the listed waste.)

Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their waste remains nonhazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even if the EPA has “delisted” the waste.

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, a generator may petition the EPA to remove its waste from hazardous waste control by excluding it from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268, and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 260.22 provides a generator the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.

On November 20, 1997, GE petitioned EPA Region 2 to exclude an estimated volume of hazardous wastes ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic yards from the list of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31. These wastes were generated and disposed of at GE's facility in Barceloneta, PR, formerly known as the RCA del Caribe facility. This facility was on EPA's National Priority List and was the subject of a Superfund Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study and Record of Decision. The wastes are described in GE's petition as EPA Hazardous Waste Number F006 wastewater treatment sludge that was generated from chemical etching operation and accumulated in two drying beds and two basins where the sludge mixed with soil. F006 is defined as “Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) Sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of aluminum.” The constituents of concern for which F006 is listed are cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and complexed cyanide.

A generator must provide sufficient information to allow the EPA to determine that the waste does not meet any of the criteria for which it was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, where there is a reasonable basis to believe that factors other than those for which the waste was listed (including additional constituents) could cause the waste to be hazardous, the Administrator must determine that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as hazardous.

To support its petition, GE submitted (1) Descriptions and schematic diagrams of its manufacturing and wastewater treatment processes, including historical information on past waste generation and management practices; (2) detailed chemical and physical analysis of the sludge; and (3) environmental monitoring data from past and recent studies of the facility, including groundwater data from wells located around the two drying beds and two basins. GE also submitted a signed certification of accuracy and responsibility statement set forth in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification, GE attests that all submitted information is true, accurate and complete.

The EPA received public comments on the proposed notice published on March 19, 2004 from General Electric Company, King of Prussia, PA (GE), the petitioner, and by postcard from an individual in New Jersey.

Comment: GE stated that the in-place verification sampling for the petitioned waste should not be required since: (1) GE met the criteria for waste characterization with prior sampling and EPA approved the delisting based on the prior sampling; (2) GE filed a signed certification of accuracy and responsibility statement pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12); (3) conditions at the facility did not change in a manner that would suggest that the petitioned waste's characteristics have changed since the prior sampling was conducted; (4) the sampling EPA included in the proposed rule was nearly identical to the sampling that GE had already conducted, and which EPA previously approved as a representative sampling protocol for the petitioned waste, and (5) EPA correspondence and guidance did not support the need for the verification sampling that was listed in the proposed rule.

Response: EPA agrees that, as a “one-time” standard exclusion, the previous waste characterization is sufficient and that no in-place verification sampling needs to be performed. Under a closure plan, EPA has required post-excavation sampling by GE to show that the sludge and sludge mixed with soil have been removed and there is no waste remaining in the units at the facility.

Comment: GE stated that the Final Rule should be based upon a cumulative risk analysis, and specific delisting levels for individual constituents should not be included in the Final Rule.

Response: EPA believes it is not necessary to address this comment since GE's wastes passed both cumulative risk analysis and specific delisting levels for individual constituents. EPA also agrees that, for a “one-time” standard exclusion, the Agency does not need to report delisting levels in the final rule.

Comment: GE stated that EPA should reevaluate the individual delisting levels for arsenic for three reasons: (1) Arsenic was not used in the manufacturing process and should be regarded as a background constituent that is not subject to regulation; (2) EPA has considered the presence of naturally occurring arsenic and has acknowledged that delisting levels for arsenic should be calculated based on the point-of-exposure (POE) concentration allowed by the Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL); and (3) since the individual delisting levels are directly related to the amount of waste being delisted, EPA inappropriately used the total amount of waste (15,000 cu. yards) in the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to calculate the individual delisting level for arsenic, rather than the amount of waste petitioned to be delisted from the basins only. As arsenic found in the drying beds and basins is likely due to the inadvertent mixing of native soil with the sludge, EPA should have excluded the volume of material outside the drying beds and basins entirely.

Response: GE's wastes passed the arsenic level identified as the delisting level in the proposed rule. As a result, EPA believes it is not necessary to address these comments.

Comment: The proposed rule inappropriately included a statement that the “exclusion does not change the regulatory status of the drying beds and on-site basins at the facility in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico where the waste has been disposed.” This statement is unnecessary as it is immaterial to the Rule being proposed, namely whether the petitioned waste should be excluded. GE has previously corresponded with EPA regarding the regulatory status of the drying beds and basins, and expects that EPA will address that issue in a separate context. Since the comment is immaterial to the Proposed Rule, it should be removed from the Final Rule.

Response: EPA is not including this statement in the final rule as its inclusion is not critical in the particular circumstances of this site. GE has submitted a plan entitled “Clean Closure Plan for Waste Units—Former RCA Del Caribe Facility” (the “Plan”), which EPA believes will achieve clean closure of the units.

Comment: EPA must do independent tests. GE polluted the Hudson River horribly so to rely on this company's representation on what is hazardous and what is not seems ludicrous. They have polluted before! GE prefers to spend its money on Jack Welch not being careful on the earth! The testing listed seems far too little to be acceptable. Page 5 details what the waste is NOT FROM rather than focusing on where the waste is FROM! Public is NOT being told exactly what origin/processes are involved. Is this withholding of information deliberate? Chromium is extremely TOXIC! I recommend holding GE to much stricter standards.

Response: The waste is F006 wastewater treatment sludge that was generated from chemical etching operation. The tests of the waste conducted by GE have been independently validated by independent validators. Also, as stated above in paragraph II.C., GE has signed a certification of accuracy and responsibility statement set forth in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12). By this certification, GE attests that all submitted information is true, accurate and complete. GE analyzed the wastes and groundwater for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and silver; for Appendix IX Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); and, for Appendix IX Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs). Characteristic testing of soil and sludge samples also included analysis of ignitability and corrosivity. EPA believes appropriate standards have been satisfied.

Today the EPA is finalizing an exclusion for an estimated volume ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of WWTP sludge resulting from the chemical etching operation at its facility in RCA del Caribe in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.

GE petitioned EPA to exclude, or delist, the WWTP sludge because GE believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which it was listed and that there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous. Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22.

On March 19, 2004, EPA proposed to exclude or delist GE's WWTP sludge resulting from the chemical etching operation from the list of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and accepted public comment on the proposed rule (69 FR 12995). EPA considered all comments received, and we believe that this waste should be excluded from hazardous waste control.

GE must dispose of the WWTP sludge resulting from the chemical etching operation at its facility in Barceloneta, PR, formerly known as the RCA del Caribe facility, in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State or Commonwealth to manage industrial waste. Any amount of WWTP sludge which is in excess of 15,000 cubic yards is not considered delisted under this exclusion. This exclusion is effective only if all conditions contained in today's rule are satisfied.

This rule is effective February 1, 2007. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only States or Commonwealth subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude States or Commonwealth who have received authorization from the EPA to make their own delisting decisions.

EPA allows the States or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than the EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the State or Commonwealth. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State or Commonwealth (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, the EPA urges petitioner to contact the pertinent State or the Commonwealth regulatory authority to establish the status of its wastes under the State or Commonwealth law.

EPA has also authorized some States to administer a delisting program in place of the federal program to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If GE transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State with delisting authorization, GE must obtain a delisting from that State before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the State. Delisting petitions approved by the EPA Administrator under 40 CFR 260.22 are effective only after the final rule has been published in the Federal Register.

Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) because it applies to a particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have federalism implications. 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers health and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this rule. This 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)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

The Federal Supply Schedule Program, which is directed and managed by GSA, is designed to provide Federal agencies with a simplified process of acquiring commonly used commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying. Ordering activities conduct streamlined competitions among a number of schedule contractors, issue orders directly with the selected contractor, and administer orders.

This interim rule amends GSAR Parts 511, 516, 532, 538, 546, and 552 to implement Section 833 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364). Section 833 amends 40 U.S.C. 502 to authorize the Administrator of General Services to provide to State and local governments the use of Federal Supply Schedules of the GSA for purchase of products and services to be used to facilitate recovery from a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. ) or to facilitate recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. Section 833 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine which products and services qualify before the Administrator provides for the use of the Federal Supply Schedules. House Report 109-452 of the Committee on Armed Services indicates that Section 833 builds on the implementation of the Cooperative Purchasing Program authorized in Section 211 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347), which opened GSA's information technology schedule, Schedule 70, for use by State and local governments.

“State and local government entities,” means the states of the United States, counties, municipalities, cities, towns, townships, tribal governments, public authorities (including public or Indian housing agencies under the United States Housing Act of 1937), school districts, colleges and other institutions of higher education, council of governments (incorporated or not), regional or interstate government entities, or any agency or instrumentality of the preceding entities (including any local educational agency or institution of higher education), and including legislative and judicial departments. The term does not include contractors of, or grantees of, State or local governments.

(1) “Local educational agency” has the meaning given that term in section 8013 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713).

(2) “Institution of higher education” has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).

(3) “Tribal government” means—

(i) The governing body of any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community located in the continental United States (excluding the State of Alaska) that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians; and

(ii) Any Alaska Native regional or village corporation established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).

Eligible state or local government ordering activities are encouraged to use the ordering procedures outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 8.4 (48 CFR Chapter 1, Subpart 8.4) when placing an order against Federal Supply Schedules contracts.

This interim rule establishes a new GSAR Subpart 538.71 and amends associated clauses to address recovery purchasing from supply schedules by eligible non-federal organizations. Among other things, the rule defines the scope of recovery purchasing, its usage, and applicable terms and conditions, including payment and the handling of disputes.

Scope. State and local governments are authorized to use Federal Supply Schedules to procure products and services determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to facilitate recovery from major disasters, terrorism, or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. This authority is limited to GSA's Multiple Award Schedule contracts and does not include any other GSA programs. A listing of the Federal Supply Schedules for the products and services is available in GSA's Schedules e-Library at Web site http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov. The State or local government ordering activity is responsible for ensuring that only authorized representatives of their governments place orders and that purchased products or services are used to facilitate recovery from major disasters or attacks for the purposes stated in Section 833.

Voluntary use. The authority provided in this rule is available for use on a voluntary ( i.e. , non-mandatory) basis. In other words, businesses with schedule contracts which contain items for recovery purchasing have the option of deciding whether they will accept orders placed by State or local government buyers. Existing schedule contracts which contain items for recovery purchasing may be modified only by mutual agreement of the parties. After an existing contract has been modified, a schedule contractor still retains the right to decline orders by State or local government buyers on a case-by-case basis. Future schedule contractors will also be able to decline orders on a case-by-case basis. Schedule contractors may decline any order, for any reason, within a 5-day period of receipt of the order (See GSAR 552.238-78). Similarly, the rule places no obligation on State and local government buyers. They will have full discretion to decide if they wish to make a Federal Supply Schedule purchase, subject, however, to any limitations that may be established under State and local law and procedures.

Defined terms and conditions. Under new GSAR clause 552.238-80, Use of Federal Supply Schedule Contracts by Certain Entities-Recovery Purchasing, which will be incorporated into covered schedule contracts of participating contractors, a new contract will be formed when the schedule contractor accepts an order from a State or local government. However, with certain exceptions provided in this rule, terms and conditions of the underlying schedule contract will be incorporated by reference into the new contract between the State or local government and the contractor. A State and local government ordering activity may include terms and conditions required by statute, ordinance, regulation, or order to the extent that these terms and conditions do not conflict with the terms and conditions of the Schedule contract.

With respect to payment, this rule amends the GSAR to make the clause at 552.232-81, Payments by Non-Federal Ordering Activities, applicable to Federal Supply Schedules for recovery purchasing. The clause provides that the terms and conditions of a State's prompt payment law apply to orders placed by eligible non-Federal ordering activities. If the ordering activity is not otherwise subject to a State prompt payment law, the activity would be covered by the Federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901, et seq. , as implemented in FAR Subpart 32.9, in the same manner as Federal ordering activities.

The Federal Government will not be liable for the performance or nonperformance of contracts established under the authority of this rule between schedule contractors and eligible non-federal entities. Disputes that cannot be resolved by the parties to the new contract can be litigated in any State or Federal court with jurisdiction over the parties, using principles of Federal procurement law and the Uniform Commercial Code, as applicable and appropriate.

The prices of supplies and services available on schedule contracts include an industrial funding fee. The fee covers the administrative costs incurred by GSA to operate the Schedules program. The fee will be periodically adjusted as necessary to recover the cost of operating the program.

Advance Purchasing. State and local governments may use the Federal Supply Schedule contracts to purchase products or services in advance of a major disaster declared by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. ) or terrorist, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. In the aftermath of emergency events, State or local governments' systems may be disrupted. Thus, use of Federal Supply schedule contracts prior to these events to acquire products or services to be used to facilitate recovery is authorized. The State or local government will be responsible for ensuring that purchased products or services are to be used to facilitate recovery.

Transactional data. GSA anticipates a need for specific information regarding recovery purchasing. Quality transactional data will allow for effective program measurement and improvement. GSA is interested in comments on the schedule contractors' ability to report data elements such as items and quantities sold, prices, and State or local government placing the order. GSA also is interested in hearing industry's perspective on the best way to capture this data.

The following statutes and Executive orders do not apply to this rulemaking: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; and Executive Order 13132, Federalism.

The changes may 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 interim rule will affect large and small entities including small businesses that are awarded schedule contracts for recovery purchasing, under the GSA Federal Supply Schedule program; non-schedule contractors, including small businesses, contracting with State or local governments; and small governmental jurisdictions that will be eligible to place orders under schedule contracts for recovery purchasing.

An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared. The analysis is summarized as follows:

The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Interested parties may obtain a copy from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected GSAR Parts 511, 516, 532, 538, and 552 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 601, et seq. (Amendment 2007-01, GSAR case 2006-G522), in correspondence.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the interim rule contains information collection requirements. The new clause at 552.238-80, Use of Federal Supply Schedule Contracts by Certain Entities-Recovery Purchasing, provides for the contractor to report the quarterly dollar value of all sales under the contract to State and local governments, which includes any State, local, regional or tribal government or any instrumentality thereof (including any local educational agency or institution of higher learning). The records required for reporting are the same as those normally maintained by a contractor in the commercial world and do not represent a Government-unique recordkeeping requirement. Therefore, the estimated burden for this clause under the Paperwork Reduction Act is zero. GSA has a blanket approval under OMB Control Number 3090-0250 from Office of Management and Budget for information collections with a zero burden estimate.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Administrator of General Services (GSA) that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This action is necessary to implement Section 833 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364), signed by the President on October 17, 2006. The law requires the Administrator of General Services to establish procedures to implement Section 833 not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the Act. GSA wishes to obtain public comments on the changes. Due to the statutory deadline, the rule is being issued as an interim rule rather than as a proposed rule.

Comments received in response to the publication of this interim rule will be considered in formulating the final rule.

On June 9, 2006, PHMSA published a final rule in the Federal Register entitled “Pipeline Safety: Update of Regulatory References to Technical Standards” (71 FR 33402). Amendment Nos. 192-103, 193-19, and 195-86 updated references to pipeline-related technical standards and made a number of editorial corrections. We subsequently identified several omissions and editorial corrections in parts 192 and 195. In this correction notice we make the following corrections and edits:

• Three editorial corrections are necessary in § 192.1. The spelling of the word “apply” is corrected in the introductory text of paragraph (b), the comma is replaced by a “;” at the end of paragraph (b)(2), and the comma is replaced by “; or” at the end of paragraph (b)(4)(iii). We are restating these entire paragraphs for clarity.

• In Part 192, the restatement of the table of standards incorporated by reference inadvertently deleted API Recommended Practice 80 (API RP 80), “Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering Lines” (1st edition, April 2000). We are restating the list of API standards at § 192.7(c)(2) to properly include API RP 80.

• Paragraph 192.227(a) incorrectly references “Appendix A.” We are correcting this to refer to “§ 192.7” and restating the entire paragraph for clarity.

• Paragraphs 192.727(g)(2) and 195.59(a) are updated to correctly reference the NPMS homepage at http://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov . We are restating these entire paragraphs for clarity.

• Paragraphs 192.727(g)(1) and 195.59(b) are removed because the April 10, 2001, deadline to report pipeline facilities abandoned before October 10, 2000, has expired.

• Paragraphs 192.727(g)(1), 192.949, 192.951, and 195.59(a) are updated to reference the correct room number for the filing of reports, “Room 2103.” We are restating these entire paragraphs for clarity.

• The current version of the gas pipeline safety regulations inadvertently omitted some text in the definition of High consequence area in paragraph § 192.903. This is corrected herein by adding back paragraphs (3) and (4) following paragraph (2)(ii) and updating the agency name.

• In § 192.949 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) are corrected to read (a), (b), and (c) and the section heading is revised.

• In § 192.951 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) are corrected to read (a), (b), and (c).

As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.

Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/ .

The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (right, fin, and humpback) due to incidental interaction with commercial fishing activities. In addition, the measures identified in the ALWTRP would provide conservation benefits to a fourth species (minke), which are neither listed as endangered nor threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP, implemented through regulations codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a combination of fishing gear modifications and time/area closures to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury or mortality as a result).

On January 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule to implement the ALWTRP's DAM program (67 FR 1133). On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended the regulations by publishing a final rule, which specifically identified gear modifications that may be allowed in a DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM program provides specific authority for NMFS to restrict temporarily on an expedited basis the use of lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right whales. Under the DAM program, NMFS may: (1) require the removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) allow lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with gear modifications determined by NMFS to sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert to fishermen requesting the voluntary removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period and asking fishermen not to set any additional gear in the DAM zone during the 15-day period.

A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS receives a reliable report from a qualified individual of three or more right whales sighted within an area (75 nm 2 (139 km 2 )) such that right whale density is equal to or greater than 0.04 right whales per nm 2 (1.85 km 2 ). A qualified individual is an individual ascertained by NMFS to be reasonably able, through training or experience, to identify a right whale. Such individuals include, but are not limited to, NMFS staff, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy personnel trained in whale identification, scientific research survey personnel, whale watch operators and naturalists, and mariners trained in whale species identification through disentanglement training or some other training program deemed adequate by NMFS. A reliable report would be a credible right whale sighting.

On January 22, 2007, an aerial survey reported a sighting of thirty right whales in the proximity 43° 22′ N. lat. and 68° 21′ W. long. This position lies east of Portland, Maine. After conducting an investigation, NMFS ascertained that the report came from a qualified individual and determined that the report was reliable. Thus, NMFS has received a reliable report from a qualified individual of the requisite right whale density to trigger the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP.

Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS determines whether to impose restrictions on fishing and/or fishing gear in the zone. This determination is based on the following factors, including but not limited to: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data.

NMFS has reviewed the factors and management options noted above relative to the DAM under consideration. As a result of this review, NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in this area during the 15-day restricted period unless it is modified in the manner described in this temporary rule.

The DAM Zone is bound by the following coordinates:

43° 48′ N., 68° 55′ W. (NW Corner)

43° 48′ N., 67° 51′ W.

43° 01′ N., 67° 51′ W.

43° 01′ N., 68° 55′ W.

43° 48′ N., 68° 55′ W. (NW Corner)

In addition to those gear modifications currently implemented under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, the following gear modifications are required in the DAM zone. If the requirements and exceptions for gear modification in the DAM zone, as described below, differ from other ALWTRP requirements for any overlapping areas and times, then the more restrictive requirements will apply in the DAM zone.

Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters and Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and

4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.

Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Offshore Lobster Waters Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:

1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;

2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;

3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and

4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.