The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend its poultry products inspection regulations to add Chile to the list of countries eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States (9 CFR 381.196). Chile is not currently listed as eligible to export such products to the United States.

Section 17 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 466) prohibits importation into the United States of slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, of any kind unless they are healthful, wholesome, fit for human food, not adulterated, and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient that renders them unhealthful, unwholesome, adulterated, or unfit for human food. Under the PPIA and the regulations that implement it, poultry products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States. Section 381.196 of Title 9 of the CFR sets out the procedures by which foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States may become eligible to do so.

Section 381.196(a) provides that a foreign country's poultry inspection system must include standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations must also be equivalent to those of the United States. Specifically, a country's regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection; (2) official controls by the national government over plant construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and continuous supervision of slaughter activities, where applicable, and product preparation by official inspection personnel; (4) separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; and (6) official controls over condemned product.

The foreign country's inspection system must ensure that establishments preparing poultry or poultry products for export to the United States, and their products, comply with requirements equivalent to those of the PPIA and the regulations promulgated by FSIS under the authority of that statute. The foreign country certifies the appropriate establishments as having met the required standards. The country must satisfy FSIS that the certifications it issues are reliable before FSIS will grant approval to the country to export poultry or poultry products to the United States (9 CFR 381.196). To assess the reliability of the foreign country's certifications, FSIS evaluates the country's inspection system and performs ongoing reviews of that system. To ensure that products imported into the United States are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled and packaged, FSIS randomly re-inspects and samples those products before they enter the United States.

In addition to meeting the certification requirements, a foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export poultry or poultry products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: a document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. To help the country in organizing its material, FSIS gives the country questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures in five risk areas. These five risk areas, which are the focus of the evaluation, are sanitation, animal disease, slaughter/processing, residues, and enforcement. FSIS evaluates the information to verify that the critical points in the five risk areas are addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement. If the document review is satisfactory, an on-site review is scheduled using a multi-disciplinary team to evaluate all aspects of the country's inspection program, including laboratories and individual establishments within the country. The process of determining equivalence is described fully on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/equivalence_process/index.asp .

The PPIA and the regulations that implement it require that foreign countries be listed as eligible in the Code of Federal Regulations. FSIS must do rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export poultry or poultry products into the United States are listed in the poultry inspection regulations at 9 CFR 381.196(b). Once listed, it is the responsibility of the eligible country to certify that establishments meet the requirements to export poultry or poultry products to the United States, and to ensure that products from these establishments are safe, wholesome, and not misbranded.

In response to a request from Chile for approval to export poultry and poultry products to the United States, FSIS conducted a review of Chile's poultry slaughter inspection system to determine whether it is equivalent to the U.S. poultry inspection system. First, FSIS compared Chile's poultry inspection laws and regulations with U.S. requirements. The Agency concluded that the requirements contained in Chile's poultry slaughter inspection laws and regulations are equivalent to the PPIA and to the regulations that FSIS has adopted under the PPIA to effect that statute. FSIS then conducted two on-site reviews of Chile's poultry slaughter inspection system in operation. The FSIS review team concluded that, as implemented, Chile's poultry slaughter standards and procedures are equivalent to those of the United States. The full report on Chile's poultry slaughter inspection system can be found on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/foreign_audit_reports/index.asp .

As a country eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States, the government of Chile must certify to FSIS those establishments that wish to export such products to the United States and that operate in accordance with these requirements. FSIS will retain the right to verify that the establishments certified by Chile's government are meeting the U.S. requirements. This verification will be done through annual reviews of the establishments while they are in operation.

Although a foreign country may be listed as eligible to export poultry to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations, which also regulate the exportation of meat or poultry products from foreign countries to the United States.

If this proposed rule is adopted, any poultry and poultry products exported to the United States from Chile will be subject to re-inspection at the ports-of-entry for transportation damage, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. FSIS will also conduct other types of inspection, including examination of products for defects and sampling and laboratory analysis of products for chemical residues or for microbiological contamination. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official United States mark of inspection and allowed to enter U.S. commerce. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they will be refused entry and must be re-exported, destroyed, or converted to animal food.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. The proposed rulemaking would add Chile to the list of countries eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States.

This rule was designated as non-significant. It is expected that approximately five establishments in Chile will be exporting poultry and poultry products to the U.S. Chile expects to export raw young chicken breast (de-boned) products, starting in 2007 with 5,000 Metric Tons (MT) and reaching an estimated 12,000 MT in 2010. These estimates are based on Chile's actual and future production capacity and its decision to maintain an increasing presence in the export market. For comparison, FSIS estimated, based on data from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), that in 2005 the U.S. produced about 1,444,000 MT of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products. Chile's estimated initial exports to the U.S. in 2007 should represent about three-tenths of one percent (5,000 MT/1,444,000 MT) of the U.S. domestic production of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products, in 2005. Further, if Chile's exports to the U.S. reach, in 2010, the estimate of 12,000 MT of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products, these imports will represent about eight-tenths of one percent (12,000 MT/1,444,000 MT) of the U.S. domestic production of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products in 2005.

The impact of this proposed rule on U.S. consumers is voluntary in that consumers will not be required to purchase poultry or poultry products produced and processed in Chile. Expected benefits from this type of proposed rule would accrue primarily to consumers in the form of lower prices. The small volume of trade stimulated by this proposed rule, however, will likely have little effect on supply and prices. Consumers, apart from any change in prices, would benefit in principle from increased choices at competitive price points in the marketplace.

The costs of this rule will accrue primarily to U.S. producers in the form of greater competition from Chile. Again, it must be noted that the volume of trade stimulated by this rule would be very small, likely having little discernible effect on supply and prices.

General benefits would include increased trade with Chile and the availability to U.S. consumers of a greater quantity of poultry and poultry products. Both nations would benefit from an expansion of trade in poultry and poultry products as part of a wide range of commodities.

Constraints on the expansion of trade in poultry and poultry products between the United States and Chile are expected to occur mainly in the form of restrictions imposed under U.S. animal health laws. APHIS has agreed to supply FSIS with evaluations and current updates of the animal disease status of regions in Chile where establishments likely to export poultry and poultry product to the United States are located.

The additional poultry and poultry product shipments are likely to have only a slight effect on the Agency's assignment of import inspection resources at points of entry on the East and West coasts. It is unlikely, on the basis of current information, that any additional import inspection personnel would need to be hired.

Estimates of benefits and costs of increased trade in poultry and poultry products with Chile are based on data supplied by the FSIS Office of International Affairs and Office of Field Operations; Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) databases and trade reports; Economic Research Service (ERS) databases, reports, and analyses; Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) databases, reports, and analyses; National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) databases, reports, and analyses; and Census Bureau databases and reports. Standard economic analytical techniques were used in estimating effects of the proposed rulemakings.

The major source of uncertainty in estimating the effects of this proposed rule is in forecasting the number of establishments likely to be certified by Chile to export poultry and poultry products to the United States. Other, less important, sources of uncertainty include imprecision in the economic data consulted, e.g., estimates of demand and supply elasticities and probable errors in multi-year forecasts of prices for the poultry and poultry product commodities that would be regulated under the proposed rule.

The FSIS Administrator has made an initial determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). This proposed rule would add Chile to the list of countries eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States. The volume of trade stimulated by this rule would be very small and would have minimal effect on poultry and poultry products supplies and prices. Therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities that produce these types of poultry and poultry products domestically.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:

(1) all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted;

(2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and

(3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection systems effect standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the systems and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS collects this information one time only. FSIS gave Chile questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB number 0583-0094. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

FSIS is committed to compliance with the GPEA, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of communicating electronically with the government to the maximum extent possible. The Agency will ensure that all forms used by the establishments are made available electronically.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this proposed rule, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2006_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp .

The Regulations.gov Web site is the central online rulemaking portal of the United States government. It is being offered as a public service to increase participation in the Federal government's regulatory activities. FSIS participates in Regulations.gov and will accept comments on documents published on the site. The site allows visitors to search by keyword or Department or Agency for rulemakings that allow for public comment. Each entry provides a quick link to a comment form so that visitors can type in their comments and submit them to FSIS. The Web site is located at http://www.regulations.gov/.

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service that provides an automatic and customized notification when popular pages are updated, including Federal Register publications and related documents. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/ and allows FSIS customers to sign up for subscription options across eight categories. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 381 as follows:

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.

We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.

On June 4, 2002, Dassault Aviation, 9 rond Point des Champs Elysees, 75008, Paris, France, applied for FAA type certificate for its new Model Falcon 7X airplane. The Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane is a 19 passenger transport category airplane powered by three aft mounted Pratt & Whitney PW307A high bypass ratio turbofan engines. Maximum takeoff weight will be 63,700 pounds, and maximum certified altitude will be 51,000 feet with a range of 5,700 nautical miles. The airplane is operated using a fly-by-wire (FBW) primary flight control system. This will be the first application of a FBW primary flight control system in an airplane primarily intended for private/corporate use.

The Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X design incorporates equipment that was not envisioned when part 25 was created. This equipment includes side stick controllers, and an electronic flight control system that provides flight envelope protection. Therefore, special conditions are required that provide the level of safety equivalent to that established by the regulations.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show that the Model Falcon 7X airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-108.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 7X airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 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 § 21.101.

The Dassault Falcon 7X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

• Side stick controllers;

• Electronic flight control system: lateral-directional and longitudinal stability, low energy awareness,

• Electronic flight control system: flight control surface position awareness,

• Electronic flight control system: flight characteristics compliance via the handling qualities rating method (HQRM);

• Flight envelope protection: general limiting requirements,

• Flight envelope protection: high incidence protection function,

• Flight envelope protection: normal load factor (g) limiting,

• Flight envelope protection: pitch, roll, and high speed limiting functions.

• Dive speed definition with speed protection system,

• Sudden engine stoppage, and

• Operation without normal electrical power.

Final special conditions have been issued for the Model Falcon 7X with the novel or unusual design feature pertaining to Pilot Compartment View-Hydrophobic Coatings in Lieu of Windshield Wipers (January 10, 2007; 72 FR 1135). Special conditions have been proposed for the Model Falcon 7X with the novel or unusual design features pertaining to Interaction of Systems and Structures, Limit Pilot Forces, and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) (October 18, 2006; 71 FR 61427).

Because of these rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. Therefore, in addition to the requirement of part 25, subparts C and D, the following special conditions are proposed.

The Falcon 7X will use side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. Regulatory requirements for conventional wheel and column controllers, such as requirements pertaining to pilot strength and controllability, are not directly applicable to side stick controllers. Certain ergonomic considerations such as armrest support, freedom of arm movement, controller displacement, handgrip size and accommodations for a range of pilot sizes are not addressed in the regulations. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain, because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls. Pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other.

These proposed special conditions require that the unique features of the side stick must be demonstrated through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handling and control characteristics.

In lieu of compliance with the regulations pertaining to lateral-directional and longitudinal stability, these special conditions ensure that the Model Falcon 7X will have suitable airplane handling qualities throughout the normal flight envelope.

The unique features of the Model Falcon 7X flight control system and side-stick controllers, when compared with conventional airplanes with wheel and column controllers, do not provide conventional awareness to the flightcrew of a change in speed or a change in the direction of flight. These special conditions require that adequate awareness be provided to the pilot of a low energy state (low speed, low thrust, and low altitude) below normal operating speeds.

a. Lateral-directional Static Stability: The electronic flight control system (EFCS) on the Falcon 7X contains fly-by-wire control laws that result in neutral lateral-directional static stability. Therefore, the conventional requirements of the regulations are not met.

The Model Falcon 7X airplane has a flight control design feature within the normal operational envelope in which side stick deflection in the roll axis commands roll rate. As a result, the stick force in the roll axis will be zero (neutral stability) during the straight, steady sideslip flight maneuver of § 25.177(c) and will not be “substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip,” as required by the regulation.

With conventional control system requirements, positive static directional stability is defined as the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free. Positive static lateral stability is defined as the tendency to raise the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free. These proposed special conditions are intended to accomplish the following:

• Provide additional cues of inadvertent sideslips and skids through control force changes.

• Ensure that short periods of unattended operation do not result in any significant changes in yaw or bank angle.

• Provide predictable roll and yaw response.

• Provide acceptable level of pilot attention (i.e., workload) to attain and maintain a coordinated turn.

b. Longitudinal Static Stability: The longitudinal flight control laws for the Falcon 7X provide neutral static stability within the normal operational envelope. Therefore, it is inappropriate to require the airplane design to comply with the static longitudinal stability requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, and 25.175.

Static longitudinal stability on conventional airplanes with mechanical links to the pitch control surface means that a pull force on the controller will result in a reduction in speed relative to the trim speed, and a push force will result in higher than trim speed. Longitudinal stability is required by the regulations for the following reasons:

• Speed change cues are provided to the pilot through increased and decreased forces on the controller.

• Short periods of unattended control of the airplane do not result in significant changes in attitude, airspeed, or load factor.

• A predictable pitch response is provided to the pilot.

• An acceptable level of pilot attention (i.e., workload) to attain and maintain trim speed and altitude is provided to the pilot.

• Longitudinal stability provides gust stability.

The pitch control movement of the side stick is a normal load factor or “g” command which results in an initial movement of the elevator surface to attain the commanded load factor. That movement is followed by integrated movement of the stabilizer and elevator to automatically trim the airplane to a neutral (1g) stick-free stability. The flight path commanded by the initial side stick input will remain stick-free until the pilot gives another command. This control function is applied during “normal” control law within the speed range from the speed at the angle of attack protection limit to initiation of the angle of attack protection limit. Once outside this speed range, the control laws introduce the conventional longitudinal static stability as described above.

As a result of neutral static stability, the Falcon 7X does not meet the part 25 requirements for static longitudinal stability. It would not be appropriate to apply the conventional part 25 requirements for static longitudinal stability to the unconventional control systems of the Falcon 7X. These proposed special conditions would require that the airplane be shown to have suitable static longitudinal stability in any condition normally encountered in service.

c. Low Energy Awareness: Static longitudinal stability provides an awareness to the flightcrew of a low energy state (low speed and thrust at low altitude). Past experience on airplanes fitted with a flight control system which provides neutral longitudinal stability shows there are insufficient feedback cues to the pilot of excursion below normal operational speeds. The maximum angle of attack protection system limits the airplane angle of attack and prevents stall during normal operating speeds, but this system is not sufficient to prevent stall at low speed excursions below normal operational speeds. Until intervention, there are no stability cues because the airplane remains trimmed. Additionally, feedback from the pitching moment due to thrust variation is reduced by the flight control laws. Recovery from a low speed excursion may become hazardous when the low speed is associated with low altitude and the engines are operating at low thrust or with other performance limiting conditions.

Because § 25.173 requires that the pilot receive speed change cues through increased or decreased forces on the controller, it would be inappropriate to apply those requirements for feedback cues to the Falcon Model 7X systems. These proposed special conditions would require that the airplane provide adequate awareness of a low energy state to the pilot.

With a response-command type of flight control system and no direct mechanical coupling from cockpit controller to control surface, the controller does not provide the Falcon 7X pilot with an awareness of the actual surface deflection position during flight maneuvers. Some unusual flight conditions, arising from atmospheric conditions or airplane or engine failures or both, may result in full or nearly full surface deflection. Unless the flightcrew is made aware of excessive deflection or impending control surface deflection limiting, the pilot or auto-flight system may encounter situations where loss of control or other unsafe handling or performance characteristics occur.

These special conditions would require that suitable annunciation be provided to the flightcrew when a flight condition exists in which nearly full control surface deflection occurs. Suitability of such a display must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers (e.g., rapid roll) are necessarily associated with intended full or nearly full control surface deflection. Therefore, simple alerting systems which would function in both intended or unexpected control-limiting situations must be properly balanced between needed crew awareness and nuisance warnings.

The Model Falcon 7X airplane will have an electronic flight control system (EFCS). This system provides an electronic interface between the pilot's flight controls and the flight control surfaces (for both normal and failure states). The system also generates the actual surface commands that provide for stability augmentation and control about all three airplane axes. Because EFCS technology has outpaced existing regulations—written essentially for unaugmented airplanes with provision for limited ON/OFF augmentation—suitable special conditions and a method of compliance are required to aid in the certification of flight characteristics.

These special conditions and the method of compliance presented in Appendix 7, FAA Handling Qualities Rating Method, of AC 25-7A, Flight Test Guide Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, would provide a means to evaluate flight characteristics—for example, “satisfactory,” “adequate,” or “controllable”—to determine compliance with the regulations. The HQRM in Appendix 7 was developed for airplanes with control systems having similar functions and is employed to aid in the evaluation of the following:

• All EFCS/airplane failure states not shown to be extremely improbable and where the envelope (task) and atmospheric disturbance probabilities are each 1.

• All combinations of failures, atmospheric disturbance level, and flight envelope not shown to be extremely improbable.

• Any other flight condition or characteristic where 14 CFR part 25 proves to be inadequate for proper assessment of unique Falcon Model 7X flight characteristics.

The Handling Qualities Rating Method provides a systematic approach to the assessment of handling qualities. It is not intended to dictate program size or need for a fixed number of pilots to achieve multiple opinions. The airplane design itself and success in defining critical failure combinations from the many reviewed in Systems Safety Assessments would dictate the scope of any HQRM application.

Handling qualities terms, principles, and relationships familiar to the aviation community have been used to formulate the HQRM. For example, we have established that the well-known COOPER-HARPER rating scale and the proposed FAA three-part rating system are similar. This approach on the flying qualities of highly augmented/relaxed static stability airplanes in relation to regulatory and flight test guide requirements is reported in DOT/FAA/CT-82/130, Flying Qualities of Relaxed Static Stability Aircraft, Volumes I and II.

These special conditions and the following ones—pertaining to flight envelope protection—would present general limiting requirements for all the unique flight envelope protection features of the basic Model Falcon 7X Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS) design. Current regulations do not address these types of protection features. The general limiting requirements are necessary to ensure a smooth transition from normal flight to the protection mode and adequate maneuver capability. The general limiting requirements also ensure that the structural limits of the airplane are not exceeded. Furthermore, failure of the protection feature must not create hazardous flight conditions. Envelope protection parameters include angle of attack, normal load factor, pitch angle, and speed. To accomplish these envelope protections, one or more significant changes occur in the EFCS control laws as the normal flight envelope limit is approached or exceeded.

Each specific type of envelope protection is addressed individually in the special conditions that follow.

The Falcon 7X is equipped with a high incidence protection function that limits the angle of attack at which the airplane can be flown during normal low speed operation and that cannot be overridden by the flightcrew. This function prevents the airplane from stalling and therefore, the stall warning system is not needed during normal flight conditions. If there is a failure of the high incidence protection function that is not shown to be extremely improbable, the flight characteristics at the angle of attack for C LMAX must be suitable in the traditional sense, and stall warning must be provided in a conventional manner. This special condition would address these and other unique features of this function on the Model Falcon 7X.

The special conditions define a MIN imum steady flight speed, V MIN , to be demonstrated during flight test, at which the airplane can develop lift normal to the flight path and equal to its weight at the angle of attack limit of the protection function. It further defines procedures for establishing the reference stall speed, V SR , to be used for defining reference speeds during takeoff and landing.

In the absence of specific regulations in 14 CFR Part 25, these special conditions present High Incidence Protection Function requirements for the capability and reliability of the function, stall warning with a failure condition, handling qualities and characteristics at high incidence or angle of attack flight maneuvers, and specific applications of the newly defined V MIN in lieu of current regulations.

The Falcon 7X flight control system design incorporates a normal load factor limiting function on a full time basis that will prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This limiting feature is active in the normal flight control mode and cannot be overridden by the pilot. There is no requirement in the regulations for this limiting feature.

This normal load factor limit is unique in that traditional airplanes with conventional flight control systems (mechanical linkages) are limited in the pitch axis only by the elevator surface area and deflection limit. The elevator control power is normally derived for adequate controllability and maneuverability at the most critical longitudinal pitching moment. The result is that traditional airplanes have a significant portion of the flight envelope in which maneuverability in excess of limit structural design values is possible.

Part 25 does not require a demonstration of maneuver control or handling qualities beyond the design limit structural loads. Nevertheless, some pilots have become accustomed to the availability of this excess maneuver capacity in case of extreme emergency, such as upset recoveries or collision avoidance.

Because Dassault has chosen to include this optional design feature on the Falcon 7X, for which part 25 does not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards, special conditions pertaining to this feature are included. These special conditions would establish MIN imum load factor requirements to ensure adequate maneuver capability during normal flight. Other limiting features of the normal load factor limiting function, as discussed above, that would affect the upper load limits are not addressed in these special conditions. The phrase “in the absence of other limiting factors” has been added relative to past similar special conditions to clarify that while the main focus is on the lower load factor limits, there are other limiting factors that must be considered in the load limiting function.

The Model Falcon 7X will incorporate pitch attitude and high speed limiting functions via the Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS) normal operating mode. In addition, positive spiral stability and partial pitch compensation will be introduced in the lateral and pitch axes through the control laws for bank angles greater than 35 degrees.

The purpose of the pitch attitude limiting function, in conjunction with the high incidence protection function, is to prevent airplane stall during low speed, high angle of attack excursions.

The high speed limiting protection function prevents the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the airplane maximum design speeds, V D /M D . Part 25 does not address such a function that would limit or modify flying qualities in the high speed region.

There are no specific hard limits on the Falcon 7X for bank angle. At bank angles up to 35 degrees, side movement of the controller commands roll rate depending on the amount of deflection. Bank angle is immediately accomplished by the control law function and deflection of the control surfaces. With the stick released to its neutral point, the airplane will maintain the commanded bank angle (neutral spiral stability). Positive spiral stability is introduced at and above 35 degrees band angle such that a stick force is required to maintain bank angle, and releasing the stick will return the airplane to 35 degrees.

In addition to the requirements of § 25.143, this special condition would establish requirements to ensure that pitch and high speed limiting functions do not impede normal maneuvering and that pitch and roll limiting functions do not restrict or prevent attaining bank angles necessary for emergency maneuvering.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 7X. Should Dassault Aviation apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant which applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Ad MIN istrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X airplane.

In the absence of specific requirements for side stick controllers, the following special conditions apply:

a. Pilot strength: In lieu of the “strength of pilots” limits shown in § 25.143(c) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of the specific pitch force requirements of §§ 25.145(b) and 25.175(d), it must be shown that the temporary and maximum prolonged force levels for the side stick controllers are suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations, whether normal or non-normal.

b. Pilot control authority: The electronic side stick controller coupling design must provide for corrective and/or overriding control inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of the controller status must be provided, and must not be confusing to the flightcrew.

c. Pilot control: It must be shown by flight tests that the use of side stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop control characteristics when considering precision path control/tasks and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other.

d. Autopilot quick-release control location: In lieu of compliance with § 25.1329(d), autopilot quick release (emergency) controls must be on both side stick controllers. The quick release means must be located so that it can readily and easily be used by the flightcrew.

In lieu of the requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, 25.175, and 25.177(c), the following special conditions apply:

a. The airplane must be shown to have suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability in any condition normally encountered in service, including the effects of atmospheric disturbance. The showing of suitable static lateral, directional and longitudinal stability must be based on the airplane handling qualities, including pilot workload and pilot compensation, for specific test procedures during the flight test evaluations.

b. The airplane must provide adequate awareness to the pilot of a low energy (low speed/low thrust/low height) state when fitted with flight control laws presenting neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal operating speeds. “Adequate awareness” means warning information must be provided to alert the crew of unsafe operating conditions and to enable them to take appropriate corrective action.

c. The static directional stability—as shown by the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free—must be positive for any landing gear and flap position and symmetrical power condition, at speeds from 1.13 V SR1 up to V FE , V LE , or V FC /M FC (as appropriate).

d. In straight, steady sideslips (unaccelerated forward slips), the rudder control movements and forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip, and the factor of proportionality must be between limits found necessary for safe operation throughout the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the operation of the airplane. At greater angles—up to the angle at which full rudder control is used or a rudder pedal force of 180 pounds (81.72 kg) is obtained—the rudder pedal forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must produce increased angles of sideslip. Unless the airplane has a suitable sideslip indication, there must be enough bank and lateral control deflection and force accompanying sideslipping to clearly indicate any departure from steady, unyawed flight.

In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.143, 25.671 and 25.672, the following special conditions apply:

a. A suitable flight control position annunciation must be provided to the crew in the following situation:

A flight condition exists in which—without being commanded by the crew—control surfaces are coming so close to their limits that return to normal flight and (or) continuation of safe flight requires a specific crew action.

b. In lieu of control position annunciation, existing indications to the crew may be used to prompt crew action, if they are found to be adequate.

a. Flight characteristics compliance determination for electronic flight control system (EFCS) Failure Cases:

In lieu of compliance with § 25.672(c), the HQRM contained in Appendix 7, FAA Handling Qualities Rating Method, of the Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, AC 25-7A, (or an equivalent method of compliance found acceptable to the FAA), must be used for evaluation of EFCS configurations resulting from single and multiple failures not shown to be extremely improbable.

The handling qualities ratings are:

(1) Satisfactory: Full performance criteria can be met with routine pilot effort and attention.

(2) Adequate: Adequate for continued safe flight and landing; full or specified reduced performance can be met, but with heightened pilot effort and attention.

(3) Controllable: Inadequate for continued safe flight and landing, but controllable for return to a safe flight condition, safe flight envelope and/or reconfiguration, so that the handling qualities are at least Adequate.

b. Handling qualities will be allowed to progressively degrade with failure state, atmospheric disturbance level, and flight envelope, as shown in Figure 12, “Minimum HQ Requirements,” of Appendix 7. Specifically, for probable failure conditions within the normal flight envelope, the pilot-rated handling qualities must be satisfactory in light atmospheric disturbance and adequate in moderate atmospheric disturbance. The handling qualities rating must not be less than adequate in light atmospheric disturbance for improbable failures.

a. General Requirements

(1) Onset characteristics of each envelope protection function must be smooth, appropriate to the phase of flight and type of maneuver, and not in conflict with the ability of the pilot to satisfactorily change the airplane flight path, speed, or attitude, as needed.

(2) Limit values of protected flight parameters (and if applicable, associated warning thresholds) must be compatible with the following:

(a) Airplane structural limits,

(b) Required safe and controllable maneuvering of the airplane, and

(c) Margins to critical conditions. Dynamic maneuvering, airframe and system tolerances (both manufacturing and in-service), and non-steady atmospheric conditions—in any appropriate combination and phase of flight-must not result in a limited flight—parameter beyond the nominal design limit value that would cause unsafe flight characteristics.

(3) The airplane must be responsive to intentional dynamic maneuvering to within a suitable range of the parameter limit. Dynamic characteristics, such as damping and overshoot, must also be appropriate for the flight maneuver and limit parameter in question.

(4) When simultaneous envelope limiting is engaged, adverse coupling or adverse priority must not result.

b. Failure States: EFCS failures, including sensor failures, must not result in a condition where a parameter is limited to such a reduced value that safe and controllable maneuvering is no longer available. The crew must be alerted by suitable means, if any change in envelope limiting or maneuverability is produced by single or multiple failures of the EFCS not shown to be extremely improbable.

a. Definitions. For the purpose of this special condition, the following definitions apply:

Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS) The electronic and software command and control elements of the flight control system.

High Incidence Protection Function An airplane level function that automatically limits the maximum angle of attack that can be attained to a value below that at which an aerodynamic stall would occur.

Alpha Limit The maximum angle of attack at which the airplane stabilizes with the high incidence protection function operating and the longitudinal control held on its aft stop.

V MIN The minimum steady flight speed is the stabilized, calibrated airspeed obtained when the airplane is decelerated at an entry rate not exceeding 1 knot per second, until the longitudinal pilot control is on its stop with the high incidence protection function operating.

V MIN1g V MIN corrected to 1g conditions. It is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift force normal to the flight path and equal to its weight when at an angle of attack not greater than that determined for V MIN .

b. Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection Function.

(1) It must not be possible to encounter a stall during pilot induced maneuvers, and handling characteristics must be acceptable, as required by paragraphs e and f below, titled High Incidence Handling Demonstrations and High Incidence Handling Characteristics respectively.

(2) The airplane must be protected against stalling due to the effects of environmental conditions such as windshears and gusts at low speeds, as required by paragraph g, Atmospheric Disturbances, below.

(3) The ability of the high incidence protection function to accommodate any reduction in stalling incidence resulting from residual ice must be verified.

(4) The reliability of the function and the effects of failures must be acceptable, in accordance with § 25.1309 and Advisory Circular 25.1309-1A, System Design and Analysis.

(5) The high incidence protection function must not impede normal maneuvering for pitch angles up to the maximum required for normal maneuvering, including a normal all-engines operating takeoff plus a suitable margin to allow for satisfactory speed control.

c. Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed.

In lieu of the requirements of § 25.103, the following special conditions apply:

(1) V MIN The minimum steady flight speed, for the airplane configuration under consideration and with the high incidence protection function operating, is the final stabilized calibrated airspeed obtained when the airplane is decelerated at an entry rate not exceeding 1 knot per second until the longitudinal pilot control is on its stop.

(2) The minimum steady flight speed, V MIN , must be determined with:

(a) The high incidence protection function operating normally.

(b) Idle thrust.

(c) All combinations of flap settings and landing gear positions.

(d) The weight used when V SR is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard.

(e) The most unfavorable center of gravity allowable, and

(f) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system.

(3) V MIN1g is V MIN corrected to 1g conditions. V MIN1g is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift force normal to the flight path and equal to its weight when at an angle of attack not greater than that determined for V MIN . V MIN1g is defined as follows:

(4) The Reference Stall Speed, V SR , is a calibrated airspeed selected by the applicant. V SR may not be less than the 1g stall speed. V SR is expressed as:

(5) V CLMAX must be determined with the following conditions:

(a) Engines idling or—if that resultant thrust causes an appreciable decrease in stall speed-not more than zero thrust at the stall speed

(b) The airplane in other respects, such as flaps and landing gear, in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which V SR is being used.

(c) The weight used when V SR is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard.

(d) The center of gravity position that results in the highest value of reference stall speed.

(e) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system, but not less than 1.13 V SR and not greater than 1.3 V SR .

(f) [Reserved]

(g) The high incidence protection function adjusted to a high enough incidence to allow full development of the 1g stall.

(h) Starting from the stabilized trim condition, apply the longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed reduction does not exceed one knot per second.

(6) The flight characteristics at the angle of attack for C LMAX must be suitable in the traditional sense at FWD and AFT center of gravity in straight and turning flight at IDLE power. Although for a normal production EFCS and steady full aft stick this angle of attack for C LMAX cannot be achieved, the angle of attack can be obtained momentarily under dynamic circumstances and deliberately in a steady state sense with some EFCS failure conditions.

(7) The reference stall speed, V SR , is a calibrated airspeed defined by the applicant. If V SR is chosen equal to V MIN1g , an equivalent safety finding to the intent of § 25.103 may be considered to have been met. The applicant may choose V SR to be less than V MIN1g but not less than VS1g if compensating factors are provided to ensure safe characteristics.

d. Stall Warning.

(1) Normal Operation If the conditions of paragraph b, Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection Function, of this special conditions are satisfied, a level of safety equivalent to that intended by § 25.207, Stall Warning, must be considered to have been met without provision of an additional, unique warning device.

(2) Failure Cases Following failures of the high incidence protection function not shown to be extremely improbable, if the function no longer satisfies paragraph b, Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection Function, paragraphs b(1), (2), and (3) of this special condition, stall warning must be provided in accordance with § 25.207. The stall warning should prevent inadvertent stall under the following conditions:

(a) Power off straight stall approaches to a speed 5 percent below the warning onset.

(b) Turning flight stall approaches with at least 1.5g load factor normal to the flight path at entry rate of at least 2 knots per second when recovery is initiated not less than one second after warning onset.

e. High Incidence Handling Demonstrations.

In lieu of the requirements of § 25.201, the following special conditions apply:

Maneuvers to the limit of the longitudinal control in the nose up direction must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30 degree banked turns under the following conditions:

(1) The high incidence protection function operating normally.

(2) Initial power condition of:

(a) Power off.

(b) The power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5 V SR1 , where V SR1 is the reference stall speed with the flaps in the approach position, the landing gear retracted, and the maximum landing weight. The flap position to be used to determine this power setting is that position in which the stall speed, V SR1 , does not exceed 110% of the stall speed, V SR0 , with the flaps in the most extended landing position.

(3) [Reserved]

(4) Flaps, landing gear and deceleration devices in any likely combination of positions.

(5) Representative weights within the range for which certification is requested, and

(6) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system.

f. High Incidence Handling Characteristics.

In lieu of the requirements of § 25.203, the following special conditions apply:

(1) In demonstrating the handling characteristics specified in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) below, the following procedures must be used:

(a) Starting at a speed sufficiently above the minimum steady flight speed to ensure that a steady rate of speed reduction can be established, apply the longitudinal control so that the speed reduction does not exceed one knot per second until the control reaches the stop.

(b) The longitudinal control must be maintained at the stop until the airplane has reached a stabilized flight condition and must then be recovered by normal recovery techniques.

(c) The requirements for turning flight maneuver demonstrations must also be met with accelerated rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to the maximum rate achievable.

(2) Throughout maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second, both in straight flight and in 30 degree banked turns, the airplane's characteristics must be as follows:

(a) There must not be any abnormal airplane nose-up pitching.

(b) There must not be any uncommanded nose-down pitching that would be indicative of stall. However, reasonable attitude changes associated with stabilizing the incidence at alpha limit as the longitudinal control reaches the stop would be acceptable. Any reduction of pitch attitude associated with stabilizing the incidence at the alpha limit should be achieved smoothly and at a low pitch rate, such that it is not likely to be mistaken for natural stall identification.

(c) There must not be any uncommanded lateral or directional motion, and the pilot must retain good lateral and directional control by conventional use of the cockpit controllers throughout the maneuver.

(d) The airplane must not exhibit buffeting of a magnitude and severity that would act as a deterrent to completing the maneuver.

(3) In maneuvers with increased rates of deceleration, some degradation of characteristics is acceptable, associated with a transient excursion beyond the stabilized alpha-limit. However, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics or characteristics that would deter the pilot from holding the longitudinal controller on the stop for a period of time appropriate to the maneuvers.

(4) It must always be possible to reduce incidence by conventional use of the controller.

(5) The rate at which the airplane can be maneuvered from trim speeds associated with scheduled operating speeds, such as V 2 and V REF , up to alpha-limit must not be unduly damped or significantly slower than can be achieved on conventionally controlled transport airplanes.

g. Atmospheric Disturbances.

Operation of the high incidence protection function must not adversely affect aircraft control during expected levels of atmospheric disturbances or impede the application of recovery procedures in case of windshear. Simulator tests and analysis may be used to evaluate such conditions but must be validated by limited flight testing to confirm handling qualities at critical loading conditions.

h. [Reserved].

i. Proof of Compliance.

In addition to the requirements of § 25.21, the following special conditions apply:

The flying qualities must be evaluated at the most unfavorable center of gravity position.

j. Longitudinal Control:

(1) In lieu of the requirements of § 25.145(a) and (a)(1), the following special conditions apply:

It must be possible—at any point between the trim speed for straight flight and V min —to pitch the nose downward, so that the acceleration to this selected trim speed is prompt, with:

The airplane trimmed for straight flight at the speed achievable by the automatic trim system and at the most unfavorable center of gravity;

(2) In lieu of the requirements of § 25.145(b)(6), the following special conditions apply:

With power off, flaps extended and the airplane trimmed at 1.3 V SR1 , obtain and maintain airspeeds between V min and either 1.6 V SR1 or V FE , whichever is lower.

k. Airspeed Indicating System.

(1) In lieu of the requirements of § 25.1323(c)(1), the following special conditions apply:

V MO to V min with the flaps retracted.

(2) In lieu of the requirements of § 25.1323(c)(2), the following special conditions apply:

V min to V FE with flaps in the landing position.

In addition to the requirements of § 25.143(a)—and in the absence of other limiting factors—the following special conditions apply:

a. The positive limiting load factor must not be less than:

(1) 2.5g for the Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS) normal state.

(2) 2.0g for the EFCS normal state with the high lift devices extended.

b. The negative limiting load factor must be equal to or more negative than:

(1) Minus 1.0g for the EFCS normal state.

(2) 0.0g for the EFCS normal state with high lift devices extended.

In addition to § 25.143, the following special conditions apply:

a. Operation of the high speed limiter during all routine and descent procedure flight must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to the overspeed warning.

b. The pitch limiting function must not impede airplane maneuvering, including an all-engines operating takeoff, for pitch angles up to the maximum required for normal operations plus a suitable margin in the pitch axis to allow for satisfactory speed control.

c. The high speed limiting function must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to V MO /M MO during all routine and descent procedure flight conditions.

d. The pitch and roll limiting functions must not restrict nor prevent attaining bank angles up to 65 degrees and pitch attitudes necessary for emergency maneuvering. Positive spiral stability, which is introduced above 35 degrees bank angle, must not require excessive pilot strength on the side stick controller to achieve bank angles up to 65 degrees. Stick force at bank angles greater than 35 degrees must not be so light that over-control would lead to pilot-induced oscillations.

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27338; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-148-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

On August 11, 2003, we issued AD 2003-17-01, amendment 39-13274 (68 FR 49686, August 19, 2003), for all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. That AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), to incorporate new removal limits for certain components of the flap system and to reduce the interval of inspections for fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements (PSEs). That AD resulted from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2003-17-01, Boeing has made a further damage tolerance analysis of certain PSEs on Model 717-200 airplanes. The analysis was repeated to divide one larger PSE into several smaller PSEs and to include new inspection procedures. The damage tolerance analysis resulted in a reduction to the inspection initial and repeat intervals of some PSEs and an increase to intervals for other PSEs.

The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect fatigue cracking of certain PSEs. Fatigue cracking, if not detected and corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

We have reviewed Boeing 717-200 Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006. Among other things, Revision 5 of the ALI revises intervals for initial and repeat inspections for fatigue cracking of certain PSEs. Additionally, Revision 5 updates certain portions of the non-destructive inspection (NDI) techniques and procedures, and corrects some typographical errors that appeared in an earlier revision. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2003-17-01. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2003-17-01. This proposed AD would also require operators to incorporate the Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006, into the applicable maintenance and inspection program.

This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2003-17-01. Since AD 2003-17-01 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 2003-17-01 have been re-identified as paragraphs (f) and (g) of this proposed AD.

The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes of U.S. registry are affected by AD 2003-17-01, that it takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of the actions required by AD 2003-17-01 and retained in this proposed AD is estimated to be $8,640, or $80 per airplane.

There are about 155 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 121 airplanes of U.S. registry. The new proposed maintenance and inspection program revision would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new proposed AD to U.S. operators is $9,680, or $80 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27340; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-271- AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

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

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

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

We have received a report indicating that the electrical bond may not be adequate between the internal fuel pumps of the lower auxiliary fuel tank and the fuel tank structure (wall), on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-30F airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could fail to meet fault current requirements and result in a potential ignition source that, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Operators should note that the same unsafe condition exists in all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes and that we may issue a separate rulemaking to address those airplanes.

We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-245, dated September 19, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing bracket assemblies and jumper wires in the center main wheel well to improve the bonding path between the lower auxiliary fuel tank and its internal fuel pumps; measuring the electrical resistance between the fuel pump housings and the fuel tank structure (wall); and doing corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions, if any resistance measurement exceeds 2.5 milliohms, include reworking the electrical bonding between the fuel pump housings and the fuel tank structure. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

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

There are about 242 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 178 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour.

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27339; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-280-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

We have received a report indicating that an operator found a fuel boost pump with blown thermal fuses and a fractured thrust washer. Investigation revealed that the fractured Stellite thrust washer led to arcing damage to the rotor assembly shaft and stator end windings. Stellite thrust washers are used in the rotor assembly of fuel boost pumps, part numbers (P/Ns) 60-847-1A, -2, and -3. Failure of the fuel boost pumps, if not corrected, could lead to the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

We have reviewed the following service bulletins:

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A254, dated September 8, 2006, for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A134, dated September 8, 2006, for McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A254 describes procedures for modifying fuel boost pumps, P/Ns 60-847-1A, -2, and -3. The modification involves replacing the pump assembly connector, washers, screws, and other hardware with new parts, upgrading the rotor assembly, inspecting the stator assembly wire leads, and rerouting the stator-to-connector wire leads. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A134 describes procedures for modifying fuel boost pumps, P/Ns 60-847-2 and -3. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

The Boeing service bulletins refer to Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-28-3, dated May 1, 2006, as an additional source of service information for modifying the fuel boost pumps, P/Ns 60-847-1A, -2, and -3. (The modification converts these parts to P/N 60-847-4.)

Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-28-3 specifies prior accomplishment of Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-1A-28-6, dated February 15, 1973, for fuel boost pump P/N 60-847-1A. Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-28-3 also specifies prior accomplishment of Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-3-28-13, dated March 17, 1975, for fuel boost pump P/N 60-847-2.

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

There are about 512 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 360 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed modification would take about 3 work hours per fuel boost pump, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $640 per fuel boost pump. Depending on the airplane configuration, there are between 10 and 19 fuel boost pumps per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is between $3,168,000 and $6,019,200, or between $8,800 and $16,720 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27334; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-279-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

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

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

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

We have received a report indicating that fuel system in-line solenoid valve installations located in fuel vapor zones along the front spar of the left and right wings might not have adequate ground paths to dissipate the overcurrent from a lightning-induced high voltage transient. This condition, if not corrected, could result in point-of-contact arcing or filament heating damage in the fuel lines that could create a potential ignition source, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-28-091, dated November 7, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing bonding jumpers to the airplane wing structure from the fuel system in-line electrical solenoid valves along the left and right wing front spar. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

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

There are about 216 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 145 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The total fleet cost is estimated to be between $456,460 and $1,018,770.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27341; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-272-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).

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

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

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

We have received a report indicating that the electrical bond may not be adequate between the internal fuel pumps of the lower auxiliary fuel tank and the fuel tank structure (wall), on Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could fail to meet fault current requirements and result in a potential ignition source that, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Operators should note that the same unsafe condition exists in certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 airplanes and that we may issue a separate rulemaking to address those airplanes.

We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-127, dated September 19, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing bracket assemblies and jumper wires between the lower auxiliary fuel tank and its internal fuel pumps; for doing an electrical resistance measurement between the fuel pump housings and the auxiliary fuel tank wall; and for doing corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions, if any resistance measurement exceeds 2.5 milliohms, include reworking the electrical bonding between the fuel pump housings and the fuel tank wall. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

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

There are about 195 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 107 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-27262/Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filled in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at http://www.access.gpo/nara. Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E5 airspace at Middlesboro, KY. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 16, 2006, and effective September 16, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

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

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

The Department of Commerce seeks to address the threat to national security caused by the illicit transshipment, reexport, and diversion in international trade of items subject to the EAR. Through government-to-government and government-to-industry outreach, the Department of Commerce encourages transshipment countries to strengthen their international export control practices.

This effort includes both government-to-government cooperation and U.S. Government cooperation and information-sharing with the private sector. To strengthen government-to-government cooperation, the Department of Commerce has worked with its counterpart agencies to: (1) Develop or strengthen export control regimes, (2) promote information and data exchanges, and (3) strengthen cooperation and facilitate enforcement. Specific initiatives to develop export control capabilities have included technical assistance in the areas of legal framework and licensing procedures and practices, enforcement training, and industry outreach. To strengthen cooperation and facilitate enforcement, the Department of Commerce has posted export control attachés to serve as liaisons in many of these areas, and has sought agreements and other government-to-government cooperation in certain destinations.

The Department of Commerce has also concentrated on outreach to key companies involved in forwarding, processing, and transporting goods through transshipment points, i.e. , freight forwarders, integrators, air cargo carriers, and shipping lines. The Department of Commerce has sought to enhance cooperation with these private sector entities via informal meetings, the establishment of communication channels to facilitate information sharing, the establishment and sharing of “best practices,” and by working with the foreign trade zone board to address transshipment issues.

The diversion of items subject to the EAR could augment the capabilities of terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism, and significantly undermine international counterproliferation efforts. The illegal diversion of such items could also compromise the effectiveness of U.S. export control laws. In recent years, diversions have contributed to a number of major cases involving the violation of U.S. export control laws for dual-use goods.

Consideration of designating Country Group C to identify “Destinations of Diversion Concern” is part of the Department of Commerce's effort to strengthen the trade compliance and export control systems of countries that are transshipment hubs. By working to strengthen those systems, the Department of Commerce seeks to enhance international security and confidence in international trade flows. Country Group C would identify those countries of diversion concern, based on certain criteria including, but not limited to:

• Transit and transshipment volume;

• Inadequate export/reexport controls;

• Demonstrated inability to control diversion activities in this destination;

• Government not directly involved in diversion activities; and

• Government unwilling or unable to cooperate with the U.S. in interdiction efforts.

As a result of being placed into Country Group C, the licensing policy would likely change for items going to any country designated as a “Destination of Diversion Concern.” Such changes could include changes in License Exception eligibility (Part 740 of the EAR), License Requirements and Licensing Policy (Part 742 of the EAR), and End-User and End-Use Based Controls (Part 744 of the EAR). The result of these changes could mean that more license applications might be required; more stringent license review policies might be implemented, which could result in less approvals or more conditions on licenses; authorizations may be delayed because of increased end-user checks; or authorizations may decrease because of diversion risks for such countries.

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

I. Introduction

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is initiating an inquiry into the need for changes or additions to the financial information reported in quarterly and annual report forms, FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q (Financial Forms). Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on whether the Commission's annual and quarterly financial forms provide sufficient information to the public to permit an evaluation of the filers' jurisdictional rates, and whether these forms should otherwise be modified to improve their usefulness.

2. The Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) authorize the Commission to prescribe annual or other periodic reports to assist the Commission in the administration of its jurisdictional responsibilities. 1 FERC Form No. 1, “Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others” (Form 1), and FERC Form No. 1-F, “Annual Report for Nonmajor Public Utilities and Licensees” (Form 1-F), collect annual financial information as prescribed in §§ 141.1 and 141.2 of the Commission's regulations. 2 FERC Form No. 2, “Annual Report for Major Natural Gas Companies” (Form 2), and FERC Form No. 2-A, “Annual Report for Nonmajor Natural Gas Companies” (Form 2-A), collect annual financial information from natural gas companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as prescribed in §§ 260.1 and 260.2 of the regulations. 3 FERC Form No. 6, “Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies” (Form 6), collects annual financial information from oil pipeline companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as prescribed in §§ 357.2 and 357.4 of the regulations. 4 In 2004, the Commission's regulations were revised to require the filing entities to submit quarterly financial reports to supplement the annual filings: FERC Form No. 3-Q by electric utilities, licensees and natural gas companies; and FERC Form No. 6-Q by oil pipeline companies. 5

3. The Financial Forms provide information that is essential to the Commission's oversight authority, namely, financial data covering a company's past performance. The financial statements are prepared in accordance with the Commission's Uniform Systems of Accounts and related regulations and provide data that enables the Commission to develop and monitor cost-based rates, analyze costs of different services and classes of assets, and compare costs across lines of business. In addition, the Financial Forms are relied upon by electric utility, interstate natural gas pipeline and oil pipeline customers, state commissions, and trade associations to develop and monitor rates. When the Commission revised its rules to require quarterly financial reporting, it concluded, based on comments received, that “the financial information filed with the Commission represents, in most cases, the only source of financial data presented in a format and detail suitable for the Commission to exercise its duties and responsibilities under the Federal Power, Natural Gas, and Interstate Commerce Acts.”  6

4. In the spring of 2006, the Office of Enforcement (OE) assumed responsibility for all financial forms filed with the Commission, which routinely reviews and updates the forms' requirements. Accordingly, in September and October of 2006, OE staff met informally with both filers and users of Forms 1 and 2 to reexamine the breadth of data collected by the forms and to determine the need for clarifications, corrections, deletions or additional information. 7 In particular with respect to Form 2, the meetings were also prompted because pleadings filed recently by certain market participants had questioned the adequacy of the type and amount of data reported in the forms for purposes of challenging rates on file for natural gas companies. 8

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-07-009), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

On May 12, 2007, Baltimore County plans to sponsor the “Baltimore County Community Waterfront Festival”. Various watercraft static displays and fire-rescue demonstrations would be staged within Martin Lagoon. The fireworks display would be launched from Wilson Point Park but the hazardous fallout area will extend over Martin Lagoon. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather near the event site to view the fireworks display. Due to the need for vessel control during the proposed event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of Martin Lagoon at Middle River, Maryland. The regulated area includes all waters of Martin Lagoon that are north of a line drawn from latitude 39°19′34″ N, 076°25′41″ W, thence to a position located at 39°19′33″ N, 076°25′33″ W. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. on May 13, 2006. If the marine event is postponed due to weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced during the same time period on May 13, 2007. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the marine event and fireworks display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of specific enforcement times by Marine Radio Safety Broadcast. These proposed regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

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

We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic from transiting Martin Lagoon during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit Martin Lagoon during the event.

This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. on May 13, 2006. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine event permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps proposes to amend the danger zone regulations at 33 CFR 334.190 to reflect current operational and safety procedures at the Bloodsworth Island Range and highlight a change in the enforcement authority from the Commander, Naval Base Norfolk, Virginia to the Commander, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The proposed amendment will also provide more detailed times, dates, and extents of restrictions.

This proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

These proposed rules have been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( i.e. , small businesses and small governments). Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the public notice comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of the amendment of this danger zone would have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. This proposed rule if adopted, will have no significant economic impact on small entities.

Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered. It may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334, as follows:

NARA does not receive appropriated funds to provide copies of our records to the public. The fees for reproduction of records in 36 CFR part 1258 are set under the Archivist's authority in 44 U.S.C. 2116(c). That statute requires that, to the extent possible, NARA recover the actual cost of making copies of records and other materials transferred to the custody of the Archivist of the United States. NARA conducts periodic reviews of the fees to ensure that the costs of providing this service to the public are properly recovered. NARA's current fees were established in October 2000 based on a 1999 cost study. As a result of a cost study conducted in 2006, fees for copying records must increase to recover NARA's costs. This is the first proposed fee increase in almost seven years.

The cost components included in the NARA-made reproduction fees are staff salaries, equipment and materials (e.g., toner, paper) for making reproductions, shipping costs, and oversight and administration of the fee collection. Fixed-fee reproduction cost components include contractor costs for making and delivering the reproductions, staff salaries for supervision of the copying operation, equipment and materials, and oversight and administration of the fee collection. The cost components included in the self-service copies made by customers at NARA facilities are staff salaries for supervision of the copying operation, equipment and materials, and oversight and administration of the fee collection.

The costs for providing reproductions of the unique historical materials in NARA's custody reflect the special handling required to help preserve records for future research. Original archival materials cannot be copied using automatic document feeder equipment. Each page must be hand-placed on a copier, one at a time. Preservation requirements add time and cost to the price of copying NARA's irreplaceable documents.

NARA is updating fixed-fee order fees in § 1258.4, the minimum mail order fee in § 1258.10, and fees for self-service and common NARA-made reproductions in § 1258.12. Because the fee schedule applies to our nation-wide facilities, we have removed certain fees for services that are not available in the majority of our facilities. In the Rules section of today's Federal Register , NARA has published an interim final rule removing from NARA's fee schedule reproductions of other Federal agencies' records stored in NARA's Federal records centers.

Fixed fee orders. Fixed fee reproductions consist of records from high-demand bodies of genealogical records that NARA reproduces for a fixed fee, rather than a fee per page copied to expedite handling. The fees for all of these orders must increase to reflect the higher costs of providing the copies. In Fiscal Year 2006, NARA's costs for the fixed-fee services were more than double the revenue received for them.

The most notable change in the fixed-fee services is the increase for full military pension files more than 75 years old (NATF Form 85). Our recent study showed that many of the full pension files for the Civil War period (1860-1869 for purposes of this proposed rule) have page counts up to 200 pages or more. When the current fee of $37.00 went into effect in 2000, NARA estimated a smaller average page count for each file (about 40 to 50 pages) and believed that the fee would cover the majority of the costs. However, we found that we underestimated the number of documents in the Civil War pension files being copied, which resulted in incorrect projections of actual production costs Moreover, the Civil War pension files are the majority of the full pension file requests NARA receives. In FY 2006, NARA completed 7,700 orders for full Civil War pension files and 1,500 non-Civil War pension files.

To account for the average page-count differences between Civil War pension files and pension files of other wars, we propose to create a separate fee for full Civil War pension files. We also propose to retain the service for the pension documents packet (also on NATF Form 85), which many customers have found to meet their information needs. The pension documents packet consists of selected records containing military service and genealogical information most likely of interest to genealogical researchers. In FY 2006, NARA received 2,677 requests for the pension documents packet; almost all of those requests were for Civil War pension files.

Self-service and NARA-made reproductions. Proposed fees for self-service and NARA-made copies of most other records are in the following table:

We also propose to increase the fee for certifications and the minimum mail order fee. NARA certifies copies of materials in our holdings on request by affixing a certificate with a ribbon and seal attesting that the copy is a true copy of a document in our custody. Our current fee for certifications is $6.00 and we propose to increase that fee to $15.00 per certification. The fee has not been based on a price per page, but on a per record basis. Because the certification fee is based on tasks performed for a record regardless of the number of pages, we have maintained a fixed fee for that service per record.

We propose to raise our minimum fee for mail-order reproductions from $10.00 to $15.00 because the current fee is inadequate to cover NARA's costs. As with certifications, NARA performs the same functions to copy a few pages of records as to copy dozens of pages for a reproduction order. We maintain the minimum mail order fee to recover the costs of administering small copying requests. The dollar amount is based upon the cost to NARA to provide minimum mail orders divided by the anticipated number of orders that will fall below the dollar threshold. The costs include making the copies, supplies, shipping, and administration. For the recent fee study, this calculation resulted in a price of $15.00 per minimum mail order. NARA will continue to evaluate this fee in future studies.

Reproduction services no longer listed in § 1258.12. We have removed fees for selected reproduction services. However, these services will continue to be available as unlisted processes in accordance with the existing § 1258.12(f). Some of the fees we formerly listed in our regulations have been for reproduction services not available at all our locations, which confused customers. These include self-service video copying and self-service Polaroid prints. In addition, we have decided not to publish a fee for NARA-made paper-to-microfilm copies because demand for them is diminishing and NARA is unable to offer this service on a routine basis. We will compute the fee for this service in accordance with § 1258.12(f) when a customer requests the service or when, because of the condition of the records, NARA must recommend it as a copying option instead of electrostatic (paper) copying.

NATF Forms 81 through 86 in this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and bear approval number 3095-0027 on the face of the forms. NATF Form 85, under this proposal, requires modification to separate Civil War pension file requests from those of other wars. Other forms are being modified only to update the stated fee.

Submission of requests on a form is necessary to handle in a timely fashion the volume of requests received for these records (approximately 18,000 per year for the NATF 85) and the need to obtain specific information from the researcher to search for the records sought. Researchers may use Order Online! ( http://www.archives.gov/research/order/orderonline.html ) to complete the forms and order the copies. For those who do not have Internet access, we also make the forms available on carbonless paper as a multi-part form. The paper form allows the researcher to retain a copy of his request and NARA to respond to the researcher on the results of the search or to bill for copies if the researcher wishes to order the copies. As a convenience, the form allows researchers to provide credit card information to authorize billing and expedited mailing of the copies.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individual researchers. This regulation does not have any federalism implications.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NARA proposes to amend part 1258 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires States to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.

Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.

In order for State regulations to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, States must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a State-authorized rulemaking body.

Once a State rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the State submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the State submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.

All State regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual State regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date.

Enforcement of the State regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a State responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA.

The 2002 NSR Reform rules are part of EPA's implementation of parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as “attainment areas” and in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS, also known as “unclassifiable” areas.

Part D of Title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS, also known as “nonattainment areas.” Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the “New Source Review” or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24 and part 51, appendix S. The SIP submittal from the State of Iowa does not include the portion of the rules relating to NSR reform provisions for nonattainment areas as the State of Iowa currently has no areas designated nonattainment.

The 2002 NSR Reform rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 rules: (1) Provide a new method for determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply with plantwide applicability limits (PALs) to avoid having a significant emission increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude pollution control projects (PCPs).

After the 2002 NSR Reform rules were finalized and effective, various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR rules (45 FR 5276, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated portions of the rules pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a portion of the rules regarding exemption from recordkeeping, e.g. , 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and let stand the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform rules. EPA has not yet responded to the Court's remand regarding recordkeeping provisions.

EPA is proposing to approve the Iowa Department of Natural Resources' (IDNR) request to revise the Iowa SIP to include the PSD portion of the NSR regulations. In general, the Iowa revisions consist of incorporation by reference of substantial portions of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule and inclusion of other portions of the Federal rule almost verbatim. Iowa has not adopted provisions of the 2002 reform rule which were either vacated or remanded by the Court, as previously described. IDNR has identified portions of its rule which are at variance with the Federal rule and has provided conclusions with respect to equivalency of the State rule with the Federal requirements.

Revisions to the Iowa Administrative Code (567-20.1 and 567-22.4) add language to reference the new Chapter 33 entitled “Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.” These revisions are informational in nature and do not include substantive requirements.

Chapter 33 of the Iowa rules contains the substantive PSD rule revisions which include EPA's NSR reform rules as previously described. The Federal provisions are adopted as follows: (1) The definitions, applicability provisions, public participation procedures, and source obligation provisions (the requirements in 40 CFR 52.21(r) of the Federal rule with the exception of the provision in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) which exempts certain emissions changes from the record keeping requirements) are set forth in language which tracks the relevant language of the corresponding federal rules; and, (2) the remainder of the Federal PSD rules upheld by the Court are adopted by reference.

The State's definition section (567-33.3(1)) contains several definitions with wording which differs from the wording in the Federal rule, but the differences are either not substantive or do not affect the stringency of the rule. These differences are described in the technical support document, and EPA believes that the differences do not affect the approvability of the rule. Another example of a difference is that the State does not incorporate by reference the Federal definitions relating to the clean unit exemption and pollution control project exclusion, which provisions were vacated by the court.

The applicability section (567-33.3(2)) discusses the application of PSD program requirements as they apply to the construction of any new major stationary source, or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable. This section extracts the language from 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7), including the actual-to-projected-actual test for determining whether a modification is subject to the rule and other provisions of the Federal rule.

The public participation procedures in the State rule (567-33.3(17)) are substantially the same as the rules in the existing SIP. EPA believes that these procedures meet the corresponding requirements in 40 CFR 51.166.

The following sections were adopted by reference as specified in 40 CFR 52.21: Ambient air increments; Ambient air ceilings; Restrictions on area classifications; Redesignation; Stack heights; Exemptions; Control technology review; Source impact analysis; Air quality models; Air quality analysis; Source information, and Additional impact analyses.

The provisions of the State rule relating to exclusions from increment consumption, sources impacting Federal Class I areas—additional requirements, and innovative control technology adopt by reference the relevant portions of 40 CFR 51.166 except for the phrases that contain “the plan may provide that,” “the plan provides that,” “it shall also provide that,” and “mechanism whereby.” These phrases are excluded to convert the language of 40 CFR 51.166 to substantive rules rather than minimum program requirements. The EPA provisions for plantwide applicability limitations are adopted by reference except that the term “Administrator” used in the Federal rule means “the department of natural resources” in the State rule. These provisions were reviewed by EPA for consistency with the Federal requirements and are acceptable.

The reference to Clean Units and Pollution Control Projects as set forth in 40 CFR 52.21 and 51.166 are not adopted by reference. In addition, the provision of the Federal rule (40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)), which exempts certain projects from recordkeeping, is not adopted, so that recordkeeping requirements apply to all modifications which use the actual-to-projected-actual test to show nonapplicability. Iowa intended these deviations from the Federal rule to address the Court ruling on EPA's reform rules, and EPA believes they are approvable.

The State submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document that is part of this document, EPA believes that the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

We are proposing to approve revisions to Iowa's rule at Chapter 20, “Scope of Title-Definitions-Forms-Rules of Practice,” and Chapter 22, “Controlling Pollution,” as the revisions relate to the NSR regulations. We are also proposing to approve new Chapter 33, “Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.” It should be noted that IDNR has no nonattainment areas so those portions of the NSR reform rules are not being addressed with this rulemaking.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that the proposed approvals in this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal Standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA. 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 proposed 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. ).

For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

This proposed rule is also accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register 's website at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html .

The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission signed in 1949 (Convention). The IATTC was established to provide an international arrangement to ensure the effective international conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the Convention Area. For the purposes of this closure, the Convention Area is defined to include the waters bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 40° N. and 40° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian. The IATTC has maintained a scientific research and fishery monitoring program for many years and annually assesses the status of stocks of tuna and the fisheries to determine appropriate harvest limits or other measures to prevent overexploitation of the stocks and promote viable fisheries.

Under the Tuna Conventions Act, 16 U.S.C. 951-961 and 971 et seq. , NMFS must publish proposed rules to carry out IATTC recommendations that have been approved by DOS. The Southwest Regional Administrator also is required by 50 CFR 300.25(b)(3) to issue a direct notice to the owners or agents of all U.S. purse seine vessels that operate in the ETP of fishery management actions applicable to them that have been recommended by the IATTC and approved by the DOS.

In June 2006, the IATTC adopted a Resolution for a Program on the Conservation of Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2007 . The June 2006 resolution is a 1-year program on the conservation of tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean for 2007. This resolution offers a choice for closing the purse seine fishery: either a 6-week closure beginning August 1, 2007, or a 6-week closure beginning November 20, 2007. The resolution of June 2006 incorporated flexibility for nations to administer the purse seine closure in accordance with national legislation and national sovereignty. The selected measure should reduce overfishing in a manner that is fair, equitable, and readily enforceable. NMFS will select one of the two closure periods after consideration of public comment.

The June 2006 resolution also calls upon each Party and cooperating non-Party to ensure that each nation's longline catch of bigeye tuna in the ETP during 2007 will not exceed the catch level of 2001 or 500 mt, whichever is higher. The U.S. catch level of longline caught bigeye tuna for 2001 was estimated to be 150 mt in the Convention Area. Therefore, under this rule, the U.S. quota for longline caught bigeye in the Convention Area would be 500 mt for 2007.

In 2006, the U.S. catch level of longline-caught bigeye tuna in the Convention Area of 150 mt was reached. On July 6, 2006, NMFS closed the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area for the remainder of 2006.

The IATTC adopted the June 2006 resolution after considering a variety of measures, including the use of quotas and closures (as in 1999 through 2002), a full-month purse seine closure (used in 2003), and a 6-week purse seine closure as used in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

The proposed 2007 time/area closure is based on 2005 assessments of the condition of the tuna stocks in the ETP and historic catch and effort data for different portions of the ETP, as well as records relating to implementation of quotas and closures in prior years. The closure targets the Convention Area and is believed to be sufficient to reduce the risk of overfishing of the tuna stocks, especially when considered in combination with the 6-week closures implemented in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The combined multi-annual, multilateral restrictions should increase the protections from overfishing of the tuna stocks in the Convention Area. In an international fishery the best approach is through multilateral conservation and management measures. The IATTC met in June 2006 and reviewed tuna stock assessments and fishery information and considered that new information in evaluating the need for management measures for 2007 and future years. The DOS has approved the June 2006 resolution covering the year 2007, including the management measures described above.

On October 30, 2006, the Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, sent a notice to owners and agents of U.S. fishing vessels of the June 2006 resolution adopted by the IATTC and approved by the DOS.

This action is proposed under the regulations for the Pacific Tuna Fisheries at 50 CFR 300.25.

On December 8, 1999, NMFS prepared a biological opinion (BO) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. , assessing the impacts of the fisheries as they would operate under the interim final rule (65 FR 47, January 3, 2000) implementing the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). For the final rule (69 FR 176, September 13, 2004) to implement the IDCPA, NMFS amended the incidental take statement included in the December 8, 1999, BO. NMFS concluded that the fishing activities conducted under those regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This proposed rule will not result in any changes in the fisheries such that there would be impacts beyond those considered in that BO. The IATTC has also taken action to reduce sea turtle injury and mortality from interactions in the purse seine fishery so impacts of the fisheries should be lower than in the past. Because this closure does not alter the scope of the fishery management regime analyzed in the IDCPA rule, or the scope of the impacts considered in that consultation, NMFS is relying on that analysis to conclude that the purse seine fishery managed under this proposed rule will not likely adversely effect any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. On October 4, 2005, NMFS concluded that the Hawaii-based pelagic, deep-set, tuna longline fishery managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This proposed rule will not result in any changes in the longline fishery such that there would be impacts beyond those considered in that BO.

The U.S. ETP tuna purse seine fisheries occasionally interact with a variety of species of dolphin, and dolphin takes are authorized and managed under the IDCPA. The conservation management measures in this proposed rule do not affect the administration of that program, which is consistent with section 303(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1413 (a)(2).

NMFS prepared an EA for the final rule (70 FR 69, April 12, 2005) to implement resolutions adopted by the IATTC and by the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries concluded that there would be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of that final rule. The impacts of the fisheries as they will operate under the closures in 2007 are within the range of impacts of the alternatives considered in that EA, and are not expected to pose different impacts to the human environment. Therefore, this action does not require further analysis under NEPA.

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

An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA prepared describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of the IRFA for this proposed rule is available for public comment (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the analysis follows.

A description of the reasons for, objectives of, and legal basis for this proposed rule is included in the preamble and not repeated here.

This action would prohibit the use of purse seine gear to harvest tuna in the Convention Area for a 6- week period beginning August 1, 2007, through September 11, 2007, or beginning November 20, 2007, through December 31, 2007, and limit the annual 2007 U.S. catch of bigeye tuna caught by longline in the ETP to 500 mt.

The proposed purse seine closure would apply to the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet, which consists of five to ten small vessels (carrying capacity below 400 short tons (363 mt)) and one to two large vessels (carrying capacity 400 short tons (363 mt) or greater). The large vessels usually fish outside U.S. waters and deliver their catch to foreign ports or transship to processors outside the mainland United States. The large vessels are categorized as large business entities (revenues in excess of $4 million per year). A large purse seine vessel typically generates 4,000 to 5,000 mt of tuna valued at between $4 and $5 million per year. The closure should not significantly affect the operations of the one to two large vessels because they are capable of fishing in other areas that would remain open. Also, the one to two large purse seine vessels do conduct fishing operation in other areas. The small vessels are categorized as small business entities (revenues below $4 million per year). They fish out of California in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) most of the year for small pelagic fish (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel) and for market squid in summer. Some small vessels harvest tuna seasonally when they are available. The proposed time/area closure will have no effect on small vessels because they do not have the endurance and markets to fish that far south for tunas on a regular basis.

For 2006, the United States chose to close the purse seine fishery beginning November 20, 2006, for the remainder of 2006. In 2006 the U.S. catch level of longline caught bigeye tuna in the Convention Area of 150 mt was reached. On July 6, 2006, NMFS closed the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area for the remainder of 2006.

The existing California based longline fishery, currently consisting of one vessel, does catch bigeye tuna. The portion of the fleet operating out of Hawaii has generally operated outside the boundaries of the Convention Area, and has not made significant catches in those waters. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the California and Hawaii based longline fishery was limited to 150 metric tons of bigeye tuna in the Convention Area. A closure for the California based longline fleet will significantly affect their operations. However, the California based longline fleet is capable of fishing for other species of fish in the Convention Area which should mitigate the effects of the closure. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the California based longline fleet landed swordfish and showed fishery management that they were capable of fishing for other species of fish in the Convention Area. With the reopening of the swordfish fishery for the Hawaii fleet, effort directed at bigeye tuna (which has mainly occurred west of the Convention Area) should remain at the same level. A closure should not significantly affect their operations as they are capable of fishing in other areas that would remain open, outside the boundaries of the Convention Area. In 2005, 500 mt of bigeye tuna were caught by the U.S. longline fishery in the Convention Area. In 2007, if the U.S. longline fishery reaches the 500 metric ton limit, this fishery is capable of fishing in other areas that would remain open.

NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. This rule does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and the compliance requirements for the closure areas are as described at the outset of this summary.

NMFS considered three alternatives for this proposed rule: The 2006 IATTC Tuna Conservation Resolution allows nations to opt for a 6-week summer closure of the purse seine fishery from August 1 through September 20 of 2007 or a closure from November 20 through December 31, 2007. The August 1 September 20 closure alternative may have a greater economic impact on small entities than the November 20 December 31 closure. In particular, the U.S. purse seine fleet may prefer a closure later in the fishing year because the winter weather is not conducive to fishing. Also, throughout the history of this fishery shipyards have been prepared to accept vessels for scheduled repairs during the winter months. The fishery closure later in the year allows the industry to plan for and mitigate economic impacts of a closure while still providing the conservation benefits to the tuna resources in the ETP.

NMFS also considered the alternative of not implementing the 2006 IATTC Tuna Conservation Resolution. This alternative would have imposed no economic costs on small entities. However, failure to implement measures that have been agreed on pursuant to the Convention would violate the United States' obligations under the Convention, and would violate the Tuna Conventions Act.

The LEAP will review a scoping document for a potential amendment to address the need for additional management measures for gray triggerfish, greater amberjack, gag, and red grouper. The LEAP will discuss enforcement implications of the potential implementation of a fish-tagging program for stocks managed under individual fishing quotas (IFQs) such as red snapper and the potential use of a Federal fish stamp to identify recreational fishermen fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Finally, the LEAP will discuss any enforcement problems and successes of the recently implemented IFQ program for red snapper and review the status of various FMP amendments and other regulatory actions previously approved by the Council.

The LEAP consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) General Counsel. A copy of the agenda and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at 813-348-1630.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the LEAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (M-SFCMA), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the LEAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the M-SFCMA, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) five working days prior to the meeting.

The CPS fishery in the EEZ off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The CPS FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and was implemented by regulations that can be found at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each Regional Fishery Management Council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to an FMP, publish notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 12.

As the principal food source for many fish and non-fish species, krill are a critical component of the marine ecosystem. Off the West Coast krill are important prey for a variety of fish species, including many Council-managed stocks. Krill are also a principal food source for many species of marine mammals and seabirds; some of which are listed as threatened or endangered and warrant special efforts for protection and recovery. Protecting krill will likely minimize adverse impacts on these fish stocks and living marine resources and in turn, help to maintain ecological relationships and ensure the long-term health and productivity of the West Coast ecosystem. Amendment 12 is an attempt to incorporate ecosystem conservation principles into fishery management programs by protecting, to the extent practicable, krill resources, which are an integral part of that ecosystem.

At this time, while a krill fishery off the U.S. West Coast does not exist, there also are no Federal regulations that limit fishing for krill in the EEZ. The states of Washington, Oregon, and California prohibit their vessels from fishing for krill and prohibit landings of krill into their respective ports. However, these prohibitions would not prevent a fishery from developing in the West Coast EEZ by vessels from outside of the region, as long as landings were not made into a West Coast port.

If adopted, Amendment 12 would add all species of krill as a management unit species under the CPS FMP and would place krill under a newly established “prohibited harvest species” category. This new category would differ from the existing “prohibited species” definition in the FMP because “prohibited harvest species” may not be taken by any fishery or gear type in the U.S. EEZ. Optimum yield (OY) for krill would be zero and the harvest of krill would be prohibited. In contrast, “prohibited species” may not be taken and retained incidentally by CPS fishery participants, but are legally harvested under provisions in other Council FMPs and Federal regulations. Amendment 12 also proposes that no exempted fishing permits (EFPs) be issued under the EFP procedures of the CPS FMP to allow individuals to harvest krill as an exception to the prohibition of harvest. These actions would fully achieve the objectives of the amendment to the extent practicable, recognizing that environmental conditions and the responses of krill and other resources to changes in environmental conditions are beyond the control of the Council.

NMFS and the Council have considered the potential for development of a krill fishery and the potentially drastic effects a fishery could have on krill resources and on the fish and other species, such as birds and mammals, that are dependent on, or that are sensitive to, the abundance and availability of krill. The Council has agreed it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks. Therefore, NMFS proposes to prohibit krill fishing in the EEZ off the West Coast.

Public comments on Amendment 12 must be received by April 27, 2007, to be considered by NMFS in the decision whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 12. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 12 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on the proposed regulation to implement Amendment 12 in the near future.