On August 22, 2005, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a proposed rule (70 FR 48899) to remove Adams County, CO, from the Adams-Denver, CO, Federal Wage System nonappropriated fund wage area, redefine Arapahoe County, CO, from the area of application to the survey area, and change the Adams-Denver wage area's name to Arapahoe-Denver. The proposed rule had a 30-day comment period, during which OPM received no comments.

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

Section 208(a) of title 18 of the United States Code prohibits Government employees from participating in an official capacity in particular Government matters in which, to their knowledge, they or certain other persons specified in the statute have a financial interest, if the particular matter would have a direct and predictable effect on that interest. Section 208(b)(2) of title 18 permits the Office of Government Ethics to promulgate regulations describing financial interests that are too remote or inconsequential to warrant disqualification pursuant to section 208(a).

On August 28, 1995, the Office of Government Ethics published its first interim rule, with request for comments, promulgating certain miscellaneous exemptions under section 208(b)(2). 60 FR 44705 (August 28, 1995). On December 18, 1996, the Office of Government Ethics published a comprehensive final rule, “Interpretation, Exemptions and Waiver Guidance Concerning 18 U.S.C. 208 (Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest),” codified at 5 CFR part 2640, which promulgated several additional exemptions and also adopted as final, with some modifications, the exemptions promulgated in the earlier interim rule. 61 FR 66829 (December 18, 1996) (final rule); 60 FR 47207 (September 11, 1995) (proposed rule). OGE subsequently has added and amended exemptions by interim rule, with request for comment, 65 FR 16511 (March 29, 2000) (adopted as final, 65 FR 47830 (August 4, 2000)), and (after a proposed rule, 65 FR 53942 (September 6, 2000)) by final rule, 67 FR 12443 (March 19, 2002).

Among the exemptions OGE has promulgated are several that exempt certain financial interests in “mutual funds” and “unit investment trusts,” as those terms are defined in § 2640.102(k) and (u). See 5 CFR 2640.201(a) (diversified mutual funds and unit investment trusts), 2640.102(b)(1) (non-sector holdings of sector mutual fund), 2640.201(b)(2) ($50,000 de minimis interest in sector mutual funds). As a general matter, such investment funds historically have been thought to raise fewer significant conflict of interest concerns than other types of investments, for several reasons. As OGE has noted previously, typically “only a limited portion of the fund's assets [are] placed in the securities of any single issuer” and usually “an employee's interest in any one fund is only a small portion of the fund's total assets.” 60 FR 47211 (September 11, 1995) (preamble to proposed rule). These popular investment vehicles are also subject to significant regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In short, the risks and the expenses incident to such pooled investment vehicles generally pose fewer concerns that the financial interests will affect the integrity of the services of Government employees. Indeed, Congress itself has recognized the diminished conflicts potential by including certain investment funds as one of the few types of “permitted property” under 26 U.S.C. 1043, which allows Government employees to defer recognition of capital gains from sales to comply with conflict of interest requirements as long as the proceeds of the sale are invested in permitted property. See 5 CFR part 2634, subpart J (Certificates of Divestiture).

All of these existing exemptions focus on employee interests arising from the “holdings” of the investment funds. This is not surprising, because common sense—as well as OGE's discussions with the SEC and other agencies—indicates that the principal determinant of mutual fund value is the performance of the underlying holdings.

Since these exemptions were promulgated, however, OGE has become aware that employees at certain agencies may work on particular matters of general applicability that do not have an effect on individual fund holdings, but instead may have an effect on the mutual funds or unit investment trusts themselves. The SEC, for example, is the primary Federal regulator of investment companies and investment advisers, and the agency has advised OGE that its employees must address a variety of issues, through rulemaking and other Commission action, such as oversight of mutual fund fees and expenses, brokerage arrangements, valuation and pricing, management conflicts of interest, structural changes to the boards to address independence, etc. Similarly, some employees of the Internal Revenue Service may participate in certain taxation issues affecting regulated investment companies, such as the tax treatment of certain expenses and dividends. Difficult questions have arisen concerning whether the participation in such matters is even covered by 18 U.S.C. 208. In some cases, for example, it may be difficult to determine when such policy matters have a direct and predictable effect on the employee's financial interest in a particular investment fund. In some cases, moreover, employees may not have understood adequately the limits of existing OGE exemptions, which do not actually cover any financial interests other than those arising from the effect of Government action on the underlying holdings of funds. Given the popularity of investment funds—the SEC, for example, has advised OGE that, along with 48.1% of all American households who are invested in mutual funds directly or indirectly ( see the Investment Company Institute (ICI) 2005 Investment Company Fact Book, Part I, Section 4, available online at http://www.ici.org ), a significant percentage of SEC employees own mutual fund shares—it is especially important to dispel any uncertainty concerning the application of section 208 to such interests.

Therefore, OGE is promulgating a new exemption, by adding a paragraph (d) to § 2640.201 of 5 CFR, that covers interests in mutual funds and unit investment trusts other than interests arising from the holdings of such vehicles. As this action is intended, in part, to clarify the application of section 208 to such interests, the promulgation of this exemption should not be construed as an indication that any particular activity in which an employee might have participated in the past necessarily should be viewed as a violation of section 208. Moreover, it is also important to remember that interests arising from the effect of Government matters on the underlying holdings of mutual funds and unit investment trusts will continue to be addressed by the other exemptions noted above.

The new exemption is limited to particular matters of general applicability, as defined in 5 CFR 2640.102(m). This would include, for example, rules and guidance documents that address all mutual funds or a class of investment companies. The exemption does not cover particular matters involving specific parties, as defined in 5 CFR 2640.102(l), such as cases or investigations focusing on a particular investment company. Where an employee would be called upon to participate in a particular matter involving specific parties, potential conflicts should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be resolved, as appropriate, through recusal, divestiture, or an individual waiver under 18 U.S.C. 208(b).

The limitation to matters of general applicability is an important part of the justification for this exemption. As in other areas, OGE has determined that the potential for financial interests in this area to affect the integrity of an employee's services is limited when the particular matter affects an entire industry or class of entities, rather than focusing on the interests and rights of a particular company or other party. See generally 60 FR 47210 (“The regulation generally contains more expansive exemptions for participation in ‘matters of general applicability not involving specific parties’ because it is less likely that an employee's integrity would be compromised by concern for his own financial interests when participating in these broader matters.”). The exemption thus would not cover those particular matters that may be thought to pose the most acute potential for conflict, such as a proceeding with respect to a specific fund in which the employee has invested. Moreover, from discussions with various agencies, OGE has concluded that the impact of rules and other matters of general applicability on an employee's financial interest in a particular investment company is not likely to be so significant as to call into question the employee's integrity: As mentioned above, the value of an investor's interest in a fund is more directly a function of the performance of the underlying holdings rather than the effect of Government regulations on the management of the fund. Additionally, any such interests are so widely shared among the American public that employees certainly would not have a peculiar stake in such matters.

This interim rule is being published after obtaining the concurrence of the Department of Justice pursuant to section 201(c) of Executive Order 12674. Also, as provided in section 402 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. appendix, section 402, OGE has consulted with both the Department of Justice (as additionally required under 18 U.S.C. 208(d)(2)) and the Office of Personnel Management on this rule.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) and (d), as General Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, I find that good cause exists for waiving the general requirements of notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public comments, and 30-day delayed effective date for this interim rule amendment, and additionally that the 30-day delayed effective date does not apply because the rule grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. These requirements are being waived because this rulemaking grants a new exemption under the applicable conflict of interest law, 18 U.S.C. 208. Moreover, delay in issuance of the rule would be contrary to the public interest because the interim rule clarifies the permissible limits of employees' official actions when certain of their financial interests may be affected, in view of questions of the type discussed above concerning the application of 18 U.S.C. 208 to employee participation in certain matters affecting mutual funds and unit investment trusts. Nonetheless, interested persons are invited to submit written comments to OGE on this interim rule, to be received on or before December 14, 2005. The Office of Government Ethics will review all comments received and consider any modifications to this rule which appear warranted before adopting the final rule on this matter.

As General Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it primarily affects Federal executive branch employees.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this interim regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this interim final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

The Office of Government Ethics has determined that this interim rulemaking involves a nonmajor rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8) and will submit a report thereon to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and General Accounting Office in accordance with that law at the same time this rulemaking document is sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication in the Federal Register .

In promulgating this interim rule amendment, the Office of Government Ethics has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This interim rule has also been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Executive order. Moreover, in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866, the preamble to this interim amendment notes the legal basis and benefits of, as well as the need for, the regulatory action. There should be no appreciable increase in costs to OGE or the executive branch of the Federal Government in administering this amended regulation, since it only adds to OGE's financial interests regulation a new regulatory exemption affecting certain matters of general applicability. Finally, this rulemaking is not economically significant under the Executive order and will not interfere with State, local or tribal governments.

As General Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this interim amendatory regulation in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.

The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to the review and determination of the Board.

The Board approved requests by the Reserve Banks to increase by 25 basis points the primary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, thereby increasing from 4.75 percent to 5.00 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of primary credit. As a result of the Board's action on the primary credit rate, the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of secondary credit automatically increased from 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent under the secondary credit rate formula. The final amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes.

The 25-basis-point increase in the primary credit rate was associated with a similar increase in the target for the federal funds rate (from 3.75 percent to 4.00 percent) approved by the Federal Open Market Committee (Committee) and announced at the same time. A press release announcing these actions indicated that:

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S. C. 605(b)), the Board certifies that the new primary and secondary credit rates will not have a significantly adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the final rule does not impose any additional requirements on entities affected by the regulation.

The Board did not follow the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice and public participation in connection with the adoption of these amendments because the Board for good cause determined that delaying implementation of the new primary and secondary credit rates in order to allow notice and public comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest in fostering price stability and sustainable economic growth. For these same reasons, the Board also has not provided 30 days prior notice of the effective date of the rule under section 553(d).

SBA, in cooperation with lending institutions, has established a Gulf Opportunity Pilot Loan Program (GO Loan Pilot or Pilot), as a pilot under the 7(a) Business Loan Program, to expedite delivery of small business financing in the form of 7(a) loans to small businesses located in, locating to, or re-locating in Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and any contiguous parishes or counties (SBA Policy Notice 5000-978, November 8, 2005).

The scope and magnitude of damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is unprecedented. SBA has determined that the small businesses located in those communities have an extraordinary need for moderately-sized loans ($150,000 or less) provided on an expedited basis. To respond to these extraordinary needs of the small business community, SBA developed a pilot program, which goes beyond the Agency's traditional disaster relief efforts, to deliver financial assistance to small businesses located in, locating to, or relocating in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and any contiguous parishes or counties (A list of eligible parishes and counties is located at: http://www.sba.gov/disaster_recov/katrinafactsheets.html. ). Borrowers under this pilot must meet the geographical requirements as well as the standard eligibility requirements for the loan. The Agency structured the GO Loan Pilot to provide its full 85 percent guaranty to more strongly encourage lenders to lend to businesses in the affected communities. The GO Loan pilot will be a temporary pilot program for use in fiscal year 2006, and will expire on September 30, 2006. This interim final rule makes the expedited small business financing available to businesses that are considered small for the purpose of SBA's 7(a) Business Loan Program and businesses considered small for the purpose of SBA's Certified Development Company (CDC) Program.

The 7(a) Business Loan Program provides a range of short-term and long-term financial assistance to start-up businesses and smaller-sized small businesses in the operation, acquisition or expansion of their existing business. To qualify for an SBA-guaranteed loan under the 7(a) Business Loan Program, the size of a business concern, including its affiliates, cannot exceed the size standard for the primary industry in which it is engaged. (13 CFR 121.301(a)). More than 90 percent of 7(a) borrowers are start-ups or businesses with 50 or fewer employees.

SBA believes that the unprecedented economic needs of businesses in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas and the contiguous parishes and counties necessitate a more expansive reach of its 7(a) Business Loan Program lending in the Gulf Coast region. Therefore, SBA has decided to utilize the size eligibility criteria of the CDC Program for the GO Loan Pilot. The structure and objectives of the CDC Program target a larger segment of the small business community than the 7(a) Business Loan Program. The CDC Program is, among other things, a long-term financing tool for economic development that provides loans for major fixed assets, such as land and buildings. To be eligible for assistance under the CDC program, a business concern must meet either the size eligibility criteria of the 7(a) Business Loan Program, or have tangible net worth not in excess of $7 million and average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) for the preceding two completed fiscal years not in excess of $2.5 million (13 CFR 120.301(b)). Size standards based on net worth and net income have been established to assist businesses that tend to be larger in size than businesses concerns that qualify for the 7(a) Business Loan Program, but still qualify as “small” for the purpose of SBA financing.

This action is not unprecedented. SBA temporarily applied the CDC size standards to the 7(a) Business Loan Program from December 1992 to March 4, 1993, but decided after public comment and further consideration not to continue them on a permanent basis because the alternate net worth and net income size standards of the CDC Program reflect the special purposes of that loan program (57 FR 62477, December 21, 1992 and 58 FR 12334, March 4, 1992). The urgent need for Federal financial assistance following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita created special circumstances warranting temporarily application the CDC size standards to businesses applying for 7(a) loans through the GO Loan Pilot.

This rule amends the size eligibility criteria for 7(a) loans through the GO Loan Pilot to make those loans available to businesses currently considered small for the purpose of SBA's 7(a) Business Loan Program and to businesses considered small for the purpose of SBA's CDC program. Rather than modifying the definition of a small business, this interim final rule extends size eligibility for the GO Loan Pilot to any business concern that is already considered “small” for the purpose of one of SBA's major financial assistance programs.

The broader alternate size standards adopted for the GO Loan Pilot recognizes that many small business concerns located in the disaster areas (including those which may not qualify for the 7(a) loans under the existing framework) are experiencing financial hardship as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Absent the recent hurricane disasters, many small businesses would continue to have adequate access to capital through traditional channels. With the destruction of large segments of the local infrastructure and the displacement of thousands of residents, the severe economic effects of the recent disasters on the Gulf Coast will extend over a period of many months, if not years. Many of these larger-sized small businesses have long-term viability, but need immediate access to capital to sustain or rebuild their operations during this critical recovery period.

SBA believes that applying the alternate net worth and net income size standards to the GO Loan Pilot provides an effective mechanism for the Federal Government to extend crucial financial assistance to this segment of the small business community that would otherwise be unavailable.

SBA continues to believe that its current size standards for the 7(a) Business Loan Program and other small business assistance programs appropriately define small business concerns. As described above, the alternate net worth and net income size standards of the CDC Program are being applied on a limited basis to the specifically-tailored lending assistance program of the GO Loan Pilot. This interim rule does not change the size standards applicable to other small business programs, including size standards for Federal contracting. Therefore, this interim final rule will have no effect on existing Federal contracts, the pool of small businesses competing for Federal contracts, or the ability of Federal agencies to attain their small business contracting goals.

In general, SBA publishes a proposed rule for public comment before issuing a final rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and SBA regulations. (5 U.S.C. 553 and 13 CFR 101.108). The APA provides an exception to the standard rulemaking process, however, when an agency finds good cause to adopt a rule without prior public participation. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public participation is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Under those conditions, an agency may publish an interim final rule without first soliciting public comment.

In the good cause exception to standard rulemaking procedures, Congress recognized that emergencies (such as the need for Federal assistance after major disasters) might arise when an agency must issue a rule without prior public participation. On August 29, 2005, the President declared major disaster areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The President also declared major disaster areas in Louisiana and Texas after Hurricane Rita destroyed more of the Gulf Coast region. These natural disasters have severely affected businesses in the declared disaster areas and contiguous parishes and counties. Small businesses in those areas have demonstrated an extraordinary need for moderately sized loans ($150,000 or less). SBA designed the GO Loan Pilot to expedite delivery of financial assistance through the 7(a) loan program to those businesses. This rule would amend the size eligibility criteria for 7(a) loans through the GO Loan Pilot to make those loans available to businesses currently considered small for the purpose of SBA's 7(a) loan program and to businesses considered small for the purpose of SBA's CDC Program. Absent this rule, expedited financial assistance through the GO Loan Pilot would only be available to businesses considered small for the purpose of SBA's 7(a) loan program. Immediate implementation of this rule, as a component of the GO Loan Pilot, will expedite delivery of financial assistance to a greater number of businesses. Strengthening small businesses in the declared disaster areas by making financial assistance available on an expedited basis is in the best interest of the public because it will facilitate economic recovery of the Gulf Coast. Restoring economic stability in the region is essential to attracting residents and revitalizing communities that were destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Accordingly, SBA finds good cause to publish this rule as an interim final rule. The urgent need to expedite delivery of Federal financial assistance to the declared disaster areas makes immediate implementation of this rule in the public interest.

Furthermore, advance solicitation of comments for this rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would delay delivery of critical financial assistance to these businesses by at least four to six months. Such delay could have serious adverse affects on small businesses in the disaster areas and the public. Providing financial assistance now can help protect some small businesses that might otherwise have to cease operations before a rule could be promulgated under standard notice and comment rulemaking procedures.

Although SBA is publishing this rule as an interim final rule, the Agency requests interested parties to submit their comments on the amended size standard. SBA must receive the comments on or before December 14, 2005. SBA may then consider these comments in making any necessary revisions to these regulations.

The APA requires that “publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except * * * as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). SBA finds that good cause exists to make this final rule become effective on the same day it is published in the Federal Register .

The purpose of the APA provision delaying the effective date of a rule for 30 days after publication is to provide interested and affected members of the public sufficient time to adjust their behavior before the rule takes effect. In this case, however, the 30-day delay is unnecessary because this interim final rule would not require businesses, lenders or SBA to make significant changes to their current procedures when applying for, issuing, or guaranteeing loans. SBA will generally apply the policies and procedures in place for the Agency's existing SBAExpress program (although there are several substantial differences between the two programs). Lenders participating in the GO Loan Pilot are knowledgeable about these policies and procedures because they must be authorized to make 7(a) loans through SBAExpress in order to participate in the GO Loan Pilot. In addition, SBA will provide OMB-approved forms for the GO Loan Pilot, which are modeled after the SBAExpress forms.

Furthermore, SBA does not expect to receive any comments from stakeholders in the 7(a) loan or SBAExpress programs or others opposing the immediate effective date of this interim final rule. SBA believes, based on its discussions with state and local officials and interested members of the public, that there is a strong interest in immediate implementation of this rule because it will help small businesses in the disaster areas and facilitate economic recovery of the Gulf Coast region.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) under Executive Order 12866. The emergency nature of this interim final rule makes timely compliance with Executive Order 12866 impracticable. SBA is currently assessing the potential economic impacts of this action.

For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA has drafted this rule, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set forth in section 3 of that Order.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

Pursuant to § 608 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), SBA is delaying the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis. As discussed above, SBA is promulgating this rule on an emergency basis, making timely compliance with the provisions of § 603 of the RFA impracticable.

SBA has determined that this rule does not impose any new information collection requirements from SBA that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35. SBA currently has forms established to determine small business status. However, as a separate action, SBA will develop new forms pertaining to GO Loan Pilot loans that are modeled after the forms currently used by SBA Express lenders. SBA has sought OMB's approval for these forms on an emergency basis.

SBA, through its Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program, can guarantee bid, performance and payment bonds for contracts up to $2 million for small contractors who otherwise cannot obtain surety bonds without SBA's guarantee. SBA's guarantee gives sureties an incentive to provide bonding for eligible contractors, and thereby strengthens a contractor's ability to obtain bonding and provides greater access to contracting opportunities. A contractor applying for an SBA bond guarantee must qualify as a small business concern, in addition to meeting the surety company's bonding qualifications. Generally, under SBA's current Small Business Size Regulations, businesses in construction and service industries can qualify as small for the SBG Program if their average annual receipts, including those of their affiliates, for the last three fiscal years do not exceed $6 million (13 CFR 121.301(d)(1) and 13 CFR 121.104(c)). For all other types of business concerns, the concern must meet the size standard for the primary industry in which it, combined with its affiliates, is engaged ( see 13 CFR 121.201 and § 121.301(d)(2)).

This interim final rule amends the size standard applicable to a construction or service concern seeking an SBA-guaranteed surety bond by requiring the concern to meet either the size standard for the industry in which it, combined with its affiliates, is primarily engaged, or the $6 million standard, whichever is higher. The amended size standard applies only to businesses with contracts that are performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma.

The small business size standards for industries in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Sector 23, Construction, are the following: (1) $28.5 million in average annual receipts for building, heavy, and civil engineering construction; (2) $17 million in average annual receipts for dredging; and (3) $12 million in average annual receipts for special trade contractors. Also, the existing small business size standards for service industries range from $3 million to $30 million in average annual receipts, depending on the industry. This rule would expand the pool of businesses eligible for the SBG Program to include those that are currently excluded because they exceed the $6 million SBG size standard but are considered small under existing size standards for other purposes, such as the examples in this paragraph.

The amended size standards under this interim final rule are applicable until SBA determines that it is no longer necessary to expand the availability of SBG Program assistance for reconstruction and recovery of the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. This interim final rule is a specific response to those natural disasters. SBA is soliciting comments on how long the amended size standards under this interim final rule should apply to construction and service concerns performing contracts or subcontracts in the specified disaster areas. In particular, SBA is soliciting public comments on factors that would indicate that the amended size standards are no longer necessary and the appropriate Agency action after SBA determines that the amended size standards have served the intended purpose.

SBA continues to believe that its current size standards for other small business assistance programs appropriately define small business concerns. As described above, the amended size standard for the SBG Program is being applied to a limited number of business concerns performing construction or certain service contracts in limited geographical areas—the Presidentially-declared disaster areas. This interim rule does not change the size standards applicable to other small business programs, including size standards for Federal contracting. Therefore, this interim final rule will have no effect on existing Federal contracts, the pool of small businesses competing for Federal contracts, or the ability of Federal agencies to attain their small business contracting goals.

SBA has designed this rule so it will not adversely affect any small businesses. Under this rule, a construction or service concern must meet either the size standard for its primary industry (when combined with its affiliates) or the current SBA $6 million standard, whichever is higher. This guarantees that concerns in service industries with size standards below $6 million retain their eligibility for the SBG Program. Most service industries have a $6 million size standard, although some are higher, as stated above. There are a small number of other service industries, however, such as NAICS 541330, Engineering Services, with size standards below $6 million. Concerns operating in industries with size standards below $6 million could suffer adverse affects if the rule required them only to meet the size standard for their primary industries, lower than the size standard they now must meet for the SBG Program. That would be contrary to the rule's intent and SBA's mission and goals. Under this rule, those concerns operating in industries with size standards below $6 million remain eligible so long as their average annual receipts do not exceed the current SBG $6 million standard.

Under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 633(d) (Act), SBA has a statutory obligation to act in the public interest by establishing small business size standards to determine eligibility as a small business concern for Federal assistance. Pursuant to the Act, SBA has determined that immediate implementation of this rule is in the public interest and delaying its application would be impracticable. Failure to adopt this rule could work to the detriment of many small businesses.

Surety companies with whom SBA has executed a Preferred Surety Bond (PSB) Agreement under 13 CFR part 115 will be responsible for determining eligibility in compliance with this regulation. They must determine that the construction or service contracts will be performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma and sufficiently document that bonded contracts meet this eligibility requirement (A list of parishes and counties declared disaster areas by the President as a result of the hurricanes is located at: http://www.sba.gov/disaster_recov/katrinafactsheets.html. ) They must also determine that the concern seeking this SBA-guaranteed bonding assistance meets the applicable size standard for its primary industry (when combined with its affiliates), or has average annual receipts that do not exceed $6 million, whichever size standard is higher. SBA surety bond personnel will be responsible for determining eligibility in compliance with this regulation for those surety guarantees that require SBA's prior approval and document their findings accordingly. Small businesses seeking such SBA assistance do not need to be located in the disaster areas, provided they perform the contracts in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. This rule enables these small businesses all over the country to assist other businesses and individuals that need their services.

In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, public and private entities will spend significant amounts on recovery efforts for many years. Much of this work will be for construction and services. The Federal Government is committed to facilitating small business participation in the reconstruction and recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast region and Florida.

SBA recognizes that some construction or service contracts and subcontracts may be performed outside the Presidentially-declared disaster areas that are connected (by varying degrees) to reconstruction and recovery activities in the Gulf Coast and Florida. However, SBA limited the application of this amended SBG size standard to only contracts and subcontracts performed in Presidentially-declared disaster areas because the limit is an objective standard that sureties and SBA can apply in a consistent and fair manner. Furthermore, those contracts and subcontracts will have a direct impact on communities in the Gulf Coast and Florida because the reconstruction activities will restore the infrastructure and the service activities will serve residents of affected areas. SBA believes that amending the SBG Program's $6 million size standard for construction and service concerns seeking SBA-guarantees will expand procurement opportunities for small businesses in the construction and service industries, including local small businesses within the Presidentially-declared disaster areas, while facilitating the reconstruction of the affected areas and serving victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

This interim final rule makes the size eligibility criteria for the SBG Program more consistent with other SBA financial assistance programs. Both SBA's 7(a) Business Loan Program and its Disaster Assistance EIDL Program determine size eligibility based on the primary industry in which the applicant, together with its affiliates, is engaged. Many small businesses affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma are seeking and will be seeking assistance through SBA's programs and obtaining Federal and non-Federal contracts. Applying similar size eligibility criteria to the SBG Program will complement the assistance these other SBA programs and Federal contracting provide.

The SBA's current Small Business Size Regulations do permit, under certain circumstances, a small construction or service contractor with annual receipts greater than $6 million to qualify as eligible for its SBG Program. This occurs only when a construction or service concern meets the size standard for the NAICS code that best describes the principal purpose of the procurement ( see 13 CFR 121.402(a)) and when it is the prime contractor for the Federal procurement. Section 121.305 provides “A concern qualified as small for a particular procurement, including an 8(a) subcontract, is small for financial assistance directly and primarily relating to the performance of the particular procurement.” However, this provision only applies when the concern is a prime contractor with the Federal Government. A surety bond running to another obligee, other than the Federal Government, such as a private owner, another contractor, a not-for-profit entity, or non-Federal political subdivision, is not eligible for SBA's guarantee under existing regulations unless the contractor meets the SBG $6 million size standard.

However, most SBA-guaranteed surety bonds are for contractors who are not prime contractors with the Federal Government. Applying the industry size standards to non-Federal contracts enables small construction and service concerns above $6 million in size to be equally as competitive for Federal contracts as non-Federal contracts. To limit access to the SGB Program to only concerns with average annual receipts that do not exceed $6 million, or to consider a size standard different from the industry size standards, would likely limit small business opportunities at a time when potential assistance is most needed.

In general, SBA publishes a proposed rule for public comment before issuing a final rule, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and SBA regulations. (5 U.S.C. 553 and 13 CFR 101.108). The APA provides an exception to the standard rulemaking process, however, when an agency finds good cause to adopt a rule without prior public participation. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public participation is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Under those conditions, an agency may publish an interim final rule without first soliciting public comment.

In the good cause exception to standard rulemaking procedures, Congress recognized that emergencies (such as the need for disaster assistance) might arise when an agency must issue a rule without prior public participation. On August 29, 2005, the President declared major disaster areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The President also declared major disaster areas in Louisiana and Texas after Hurricane Rita destroyed more of the Gulf Coast region and in Florida after Hurricane Wilma. These natural disasters have affected U.S. businesses in the declared disaster areas and across the Nation. Implementing this rule immediately will support the economic recovery of the Gulf Coast region and Florida and is in the best interest of the public. Construction and service concerns affected by the disaster will be more able to assist in the rebuilding and clean-up efforts, and in delivering much needed services to disaster victims. This rule will also assist small construction and service concerns not affected by the disaster to provide disaster assistance in their industries.

The Federal Government and other public and private entities are, and will be, contracting for clean-up activities, substantial reconstruction and other services in the disaster areas. However, some small construction and service concerns that had been able to obtain standard surety bonding before the disasters may now need SBA's guarantee because of their deteriorating financial conditions. This rule will permit more businesses to qualify for SBA-guaranteed surety bonds and perform contracts to help rebuild and revitalize the Gulf Coast region and Florida. Strong small business participation, in turn, will promote economic recovery in the area. In the public interest, this interim final rule would increase the number of small business participants in these efforts.

Accordingly, SBA finds good cause to publish this rule as an interim final rule because of the urgent need to speed delivery of disaster assistance to the affected area. Furthermore, advance solicitation of comments for this rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would delay delivery of critical assistance to these businesses by at least four to six months. Such delay could have serious adverse affects on small businesses and the public in the disaster area. Immediate access to SBA-guaranteed surety bonds can help protect some small businesses that might otherwise have to cease operations before a rule could be promulgated under standard notice and comment rulemaking procedures.

Although SBA is publishing this rule as an interim final rule, the Agency requests interested parties to submit their comments to the amended size standard. In particular, SBA welcomes comments on how long the amended size standards under this interim final rule should apply to construction and service concerns performing contracts or subcontracts in the specified disaster areas, factors SBA should consider before determining that the size standards are no longer necessary, and the appropriate Agency action after SBA makes that determination. SBA must receive the comments on or before December 14, 2005. SBA may then consider these comments in making any necessary revisions to these regulations.

The APA requires that “publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except * * * as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). SBA finds that good cause exists to make this final rule become effective on the same day it is published in the Federal Register .

The purpose of the APA provision delaying the effective date of a rule for 30 days after publication is to provide interested and affected members of the public sufficient time to adjust their behavior before the rule takes effect. In this case, however, the 30-day delay is unnecessary because this interim final rule would not require businesses, sureties, or SBA to make significant changes to their current procedures when applying for, issuing, or guaranteeing surety bonds. Sureties and SBA would begin applying the new size eligibility criteria to businesses upon publication of this interim final rule. Furthermore, SBA does not expect to receive any comments from those stakeholders in the SBG Program or others opposing the immediate effective date of this interim final rule. SBA included a proposal similar to this interim final rule in a proposed rule published on March 19, 2004 (69 FR 13129), and the Agency did not receive any comments opposing it. Moreover, SBA believes, based on its discussions with interested members of the public and the need to quickly assist hurricane victims, that there is a strong interest in immediate implementation of this rule. SBA is aware of many entities that will be assisted by the immediate adoption of this rule, many of those are small businesses directly affected by the natural disasters.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) under Executive Order 12866. A general discussion of the need for this regulatory action and its potential costs and benefits follows.

SBA's statutory mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial, procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To effectively assist the intended beneficiaries of these programs, SBA must establish distinct definitions of which businesses are deemed small businesses. The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) (Act) delegates to the SBA Administrator the responsibility for establishing small business definitions. The Act also requires that small business definitions vary to reflect industry differences, as necessary.

As discussed in the above supplemental information section, this interim final rule is needed to expand eligibility for SBA's SBG Program to construction and service contractors participating in the reconstruction and recovery efforts of the Gulf Coast and Florida. The amended size standard for the SBG Program only applies to contracts that are performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. This action will assist construction and service concerns located in the disaster areas and across the Nation by providing access to the SBG Program and expanding procurement opportunities for them. Disaster victims will also benefit as small businesses help to rebuild their communities.

At this time, SBA cannot estimate the number or value of contracts, Federal or non-Federal, that small construction and service concerns will undertake to rebuild the Gulf Coast and Florida following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. SBA cannot estimate the number or value of contracts that will require surety bonds or the number or value of surety bonds that SBA will guarantee. Nor can it estimate the number of small businesses affected and not affected by the natural disasters that will participate in the SBG Program after the publication of this rule. SBA does believe, however, that expanding eligibility for its SBG Program will provide the disaster victims with significant and timely benefits when and where the greatest needs exist. For example, disaster-affected small business concerns can receive SBG Program assistance to restart their businesses. Other small business concerns may qualify to contract for more and larger surety bonds with SBA's guarantee.

SBA expects that this rule will lead to an increase in the number of SBA-guaranteed bonds. Although SBA does not anticipate loss rates changing significantly after this interim final rule becomes effective, the Government may incur additional costs to honor its guarantee on a greater volume of (but stable percentage of) defaulted bonds. SBA must honor its guarantees to the sureties on defaulted bonds for the percentage of loss that it guaranteed. Guaranteed amounts vary as follows: (1) Under the PSB Program, 70 percent (this does not change); (2) under the prior approval program, contracts valued at $100,000 or less, or on behalf of a concern owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual, 90 percent; and (3) for contracts in excess of $100,000 there is a gradually decreasing percentage, but the percentage does not fall below 80 percent (13 CFR 115.31). For fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005, SBA's loss rates were 1.8 percent, 1.3 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively. SBA expects these rates to remain stable even though the volume of SBA-guaranteed surety bonds is expected to increase.

Among businesses seeking SBA's assistance through the SBG Program, there could be additional costs for professional time required to complete applications for the surety and the SBA guarantee. Businesses also incur costs through payment of fees to participate in the SBG Program. Contractors pay a fee of $6 per $1,000 of the contract value, which the surety companies remit to SBA. (13 CFR 115.32). Although there have been no protests of a SBG Program participant's small business status in the last five years, at least, businesses could also incur legal costs associated with defending themselves against size protests. Businesses may also incur legal costs associated with compliance.

Both surety companies and SBA could incur additional administrative costs as a result of processing the increased volume of surety bond applications and applications for the SBA-guarantee. There may be additional administrative costs for PSB surety bond companies because they must document the contractors' eligibility for the SBA-guaranteed surety bond under the amended size standard. SBA anticipates, however, that these additional administrative costs will be minimal because surety companies and SBA already perform these administrative functions in the ordinary course of business.

SBA anticipates little or no adverse effects on currently defined small businesses from the increase in the number of newly eligible small businesses. Potentially, a newly defined small business could obtain a contract that a currently defined small business may have received. SBA expects those cases to be few in number because the decision to award a contract is based on many considerations. This rule enhances the environment for small construction and service concerns to compete for opportunities and strengthens their competitiveness related to contracts performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma.

For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA has drafted this rule, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set forth in section 3 of that Order.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

SBA has determined that this rule does not impose any new information collection requirements from SBA that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Immediately below, SBA sets forth an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) addressing the reasons for promulgating the rule; the objectives of this rule; SBA's descriptions and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply; a description of potential benefits of the rule; the projected reporting record keeping and other compliance requirements of the rule; the relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule; and alternatives considered by SBA.

As discussed in the above supplemental information section, this rule provides immediate eligibility to construction and service contractors for SBA's SBG Program under the same small business size standards that apply to all other SBG applicants. However, SBA will only guarantee surety bonds for contracts to eligible small construction or service concerns that will be performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma.

Surety companies with whom SBA has executed a Preferred Surety Bond (PSB) Agreement under 13 CFR part 115 will be responsible for determining eligibility in compliance with this regulation. SBA surety bond personnel will be responsible for determining eligibility in compliance with this regulation for those surety guarantees that require SBA's prior approval.

Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) gives SBA authority to establish and change size standards. SBA is using that discretionary authority to provide SBG Program assistance to those who need it and to those who can help with recovery and reconstruction.

SBA intends to provide immediate SBG Program assistance to construction and service contractors in the areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. SBA intends also to provide SBG Program assistance to construction and service contractors not directly affected by the hurricanes, if their contracts or subcontracts are performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma.

This rule applies to all construction (general and special trades) and service concerns that meet the amended size standard and perform contracts that are performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. SBA is issuing this interim final rule without estimating the number of small entities affected by this interim final rule in the interest of assisting disaster victims and providing immediate opportunities for small businesses to participate in the recovery efforts. The scope of this amended size standard is limited to contracts performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma. It is likely that most construction and service concerns that will benefit from this rule will also be located in the Gulf Coast states and Florida. SBA welcomes comments describing the types and number of small entities that this rule will affect.

The most significant benefits of this rule will flow to small businesses and victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma in the Gulf Coast region of the United States and Florida. Many small construction and service contractors were not eligible for SBG assistance before this rule because their annual receipts exceeded $6 million. Under this interim final rule, they are eligible if they (together with their affiliates) meet the small business size standards for their primary industries or the current SBG $6 million standard, whichever is higher. Small construction and service contractors not directly affected by the hurricanes, but that can provide assistance, are similarly eligible now if they (together with their affiliates) meet the small business size standards for their primary industries or the current SBG $6 million standard, whichever is higher. In the end, hurricane victims will benefit the most.

SBA cannot estimate of the number or value of contracts, whether Federal or non-Federal, that they will receive. Nor can we estimate the number of small businesses affected and not affected by the disaster that will benefit. SBA does believe, however, that the increase in eligibility for its SBG Program will provide the disaster victims with significant and timely benefits. Disaster-affected small business concerns can receive SBG Program assistance to restart their businesses. Other small business concerns may qualify for more and larger contracts and surety bonds with SBA's guarantee.

This rule does not affect other than small businesses. However, entities that are not small businesses, such as not-for-profit entities, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions, can be beneficiaries of the reconstruction and services that small businesses will provide.

This rule will not provide assistance under SBA's 7(a) Guaranteed Loan Program, or any other program. This rule does not amend or otherwise modify the small business size standard for any other SBA programs, including its 7(a) Guaranteed Loan and Disaster Assistance EIDL Programs. However, it will enable businesses to obtain SBA-guaranteed surety bonding that may work hand-in-hand with SBA's Business Loan and EIDL Programs, for those that apply for and receive financial assistance under one or both of them.

This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35. A new size standard does not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping or compliance requirements on small entities. Increasing size standards expands access to SBA programs that assist small businesses, but does not impose a regulatory burden because small business size standards neither regulate nor control business behavior.

This rule affects only SBA's SBG Program. This rule does not overlap with other Federal rules that use SBA's size standards to define a small business. Under section 632(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, unless specifically authorized by statute, Federal agencies must use SBA's size standards to define a small business. In 1995, SBA published in the Federal Register a list of statutory and regulatory size standards that identified the application of SBA's size standards as well as other size standards used by Federal agencies (60 FR 57988-57991, November 24, 1995). SBA is not aware of any Federal rule that would duplicate or conflict with this rule.

This regulation will not impact other Federal programs that use its size standards. When a Federal agency believes that an SBA-established size standard is not appropriate for its programs, the Small Business Act and SBA's regulations allows that agency to develop different size standards, subject to the approval of the SBA Administrator. (13 CFR 121.902). For a regulatory flexibility analysis, agencies must consult with SBA's Office of Advocacy when developing different size standards for their programs.

One alternative to this rule would be to leave the SBG Program size standard unchanged. However, given the immediacy and anticipated extent of the need at hand, SBA believes this would not be in the best interests of disaster victims.

Another alternative is to issue a proposed rule. However, as stated above, that process could conceivably take at least four to six months before any final action would occur. This too, could be harmful to small businesses who may be forced to cease operations before the final rule could be published. Also, delayed reconstruction efforts would not be in the best interests of disaster victims. This interim final rule will provide immediate assistance where needed and at the same time provide opportunity for interested parties to comment on the rule.

EDA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 47002) on August 11, 2005. The interim final rule reflects the amendments made to EDA's authorizing statute, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ) (“PWEDA”), by the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-373). In addition to tracking the statutory amendments to PWEDA, the interim final rule reflects EDA's current practices and policies in administering its economic development programs that have evolved since the promulgation of EDA's former regulations. The interim final rule also provides for a public comment period.

On September 30, 2005, EDA published a final rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 57124) delaying the effective date of certain provisions in the interim final rule from October 1, 2005 until November 14, 2005. The September 30, 2005 final rule also extended the deadline for submitting public comments on the interim final rule from October 11, 2005 until November 14, 2005. All other provisions of the interim final rule became effective on October 1, 2005.

This final rule delays the effective date of the provisions specified in the DATES section pertaining to EDA's Planning Investment Rates and District Organizations from November 14, 2005 until January 31, 2006. This delay in effective date is necessary to provide additional time for EDA to consider comments received concerning certain provisions of the interim final rule, as well for EDA to address matters pertaining to the effective implementation of the interim final rule.

Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

It has been determined that this final rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule is not “major” under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in Executive Order 13132 to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” It has been determined that this final rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications.

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay certification of the airplane and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance; however, 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 may 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 these special conditions, 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 August 18, 2005, Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc., Quad City Airport, PO Box 100, Moline, Illinois 61266, applied for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) to modify Cessna Model 650 airplanes. These models are currently approved under Type Certificate No. A9NM. The Cessna Model 650 is a small transport category airplane. The Cessna Model 650 airplanes are powered by two turbine engines, with maximum takeoff weights of up to 23,000 pounds. These airplanes operate with a 2-person crew and can seat up to 13 passengers. The modification incorporates the installation of electronic flight display systems manufactured by Universal Avionics Systems Corporation. The avionics/electronics and electrical systems installed in this airplane have the potential to be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) external to the airplane.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc. must show that the Cessna Model 650, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A9NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The certification basis for the Cessna Model 650 airplanes includes part 25 of 14 CFR effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-39; §§ 25.901(c) and 25.1199 as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-40; §§ 25.1309 and 25.1351(d) as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-41; §§ 25.177, 25.255, and 25.703 as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-42; § 25.1326 as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-43; § 25.1413 as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-44; §§ 25.1305 and 25.1529 as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-54. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, equivalent levels of safety, or later amended sections of the applicable part 25 that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( i.e. , part 25, as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Cessna Model 650 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Cessna Model 650 airplanes 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.

Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued under § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A9NM to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

As noted earlier, the Cessna Model 650 airplanes modified by Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc. will incorporate electronic flight display systems. These systems may be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields external to the airplane. The current airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of this equipment from the adverse effects of HIRF. Accordingly, these systems are considered to be a novel or unusual design feature.

There is no specific regulation that addresses protection requirements for electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from ground-based radio transmitters and the growing use of sensitive avionics/electronics and electrical systems to command and control airplanes have made it necessary to provide adequate protection.

To ensure that a level of safety is achieved equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are needed for the Cessna Model 650 airplanes modified by Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc. These special conditions require that new avionics/electronics and electrical systems that perform critical functions be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function due to both the direct and indirect effects of HIRF.

With the trend toward increased power levels from ground-based transmitters, and the advent of space and satellite communications coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the immunity of critical avionics/electronics and electrical systems to HIRF must be established.

It is not possible to precisely define the HIRF to which the airplane will be exposed in service. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling of electromagnetic energy to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, an adequate level of protection exists when compliance with the HIRF protection special condition is shown with either paragraph 1 or 2 below:

1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms (root-mean-square) per meter electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.

a. The threat must be applied to the system elements and their associated wiring harnesses without the benefit of airframe shielding.

b. Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.

2. A threat external to the airframe of the field strengths identified in the table below for the frequency ranges indicated. Both peak and average field strength components from the table are to be demonstrated.

The threat levels identified above are the result of an FAA review of existing studies on the subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Cessna Model 650 airplanes modified by Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc. Should Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A9NM to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under provisions of § 21.101.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Cessna Model 650 airplanes modified by Elliott Aviation Technical Product Development, Inc. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2002-11-04, amendment 39-12765 (67 FR 38193, June 3, 2002). The existing AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes, and all Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48085). That NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracks of certain attachment holes, installation of new fasteners, follow-on inspections or repair if necessary, and modification of the angle fittings of fuselage frame FR47. That NPRM also proposed to revise certain inspection thresholds and intervals and add inspections to detect cracks of additional attachment holes.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment that has been received on the NPRM.

One commenter, the manufacturer, requests that we clarify the inspection specified in paragraph (k) of the NPRM. The commenter states that the inspection of hole T is not required if “any cracking is found” but is required only if cracking is found at hole G.

We agree with the commenter that the inspection of hole T is required only if cracking is found at hole G. As specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 01, dated April 2, 2002 (which is referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions for certain airplanes), the inspection of hole T is applicable only if cracking is found at hole G. For clarity, we have revised paragraph (k) of the final rule.

We have revised certain references to the service bulletins for clarity. We have clarified that the actions specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of the final rule are done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 01, dated April 2, 2002. We have also clarified that the modifications specified in paragraph (l) of the final rule are done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 03, dated May 31, 2001.

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

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

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. This AD will affect about 74 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, and 25F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19718). That NPRM proposed to require removing the thrust reverser accumulator, and making the thrust reverser hydraulic system and the thrust reversers inoperable.

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

One commenter does not support the NPRM. The commenter asserts that deactivating the thrust reversers will cause more accidents, especially under wet or winter runway conditions. The commenter also asserts that one in-flight failure of a thrust reverser does not justify the NPRM given the countless safe operations without thrust reverser failures. The commenter states that “[the FAA] also [has] not looked or measured the increase of accidents that will be caused by this [NPRM].” As further justification for not supporting the NPRM, the commenter states that the NPRM does not account for the cost of brake and tire wear that would be incurred if the thrust reversers are deactivated. We infer that the commenter would like us to withdraw the NPRM.

We do not agree, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists, and that the interim actions of this AD are necessary to ensure the continued safety of the affected fleet. The one thrust reverser failure on a Learjet Model 25B airplane that occurred in flight led to an emergency landing. A second failure occurred during proof testing and resulted in injury to a person. We acknowledge the commenter's concern with deactivating the thrust reversers; however, the affected Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, and 25F airplanes were not originally type certificated with thrust reversers installed. Furthermore, we estimate that half of these Learjet model airplanes in service today are operating without thrust reversers. Therefore, an increase in accidents due to deactivation of the affected thrust reversers is unlikely.

Regarding the cost impact of this AD, we point out that the economic analysis of the AD is limited only to the cost of actions actually required by the AD; it does not include incidental costs. In any case, we have determined that direct and incidental costs are outweighed by the safety benefits of this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Two commenters request that we revise the NPRM to require repetitive nondestructive testing or x-ray inspections of the thrust reverser accumulator, instead of proposing to deactivate the thrust reversers. One of the commenters states that inspection of the suspected point of failure (the female threads of the accumulator) would be sufficient to prevent failure of the thrust reverser accumulator. The commenter suggests that deactivation of the thrust reversers could be required if damage is found during an inspection.

We do not agree, since the commenters provide no technical justification for revising the requirements of this AD. The history of crack growth on the affected thrust reversers is unknown. In addition, there have been no studies done to determine an appropriate inspection interval for providing an acceptable level of safety. As stated in the NPRM, the parts manufacturer currently is developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition of this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking. Therefore no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

One commenter, the parts manufacturer, requests that we delete reference to Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) SA1731SW, SA1669SW, and SA1670SW from the applicability of the NPRM. The commenter states this change will ensure that the NPRM is also applicable to other Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, and 25F airplanes equipped with the affected thrust reverser accumulators. As an example, the commenter mentions that Model 24, 24B, 24D, 24F, 25, 25B, 25C, and 25D airplanes modified by STC SA944NW are also equipped with the affected thrust reverser accumulators, but are not included in the applicability of the NPRM.

We do not agree. We have determined that Model 24, 24B, 24D, 24F, 25, 25B, 25C, and 25D airplanes modified by STC SA944NW do not need to be added to the applicability of this AD. The thrust reverser accumulator is an optional installation for STC SA944NW. The current STC holder did not purchase the thrust reverser data, and the thrust reverser accumulators cannot be installed without using the STCs identified in this AD. Furthermore, deleting reference to STCs SA1731SW, SA1669SW, and SA1670SW would expand the applicability of this AD, creating further delay in addressing the unsafe condition. If we become aware of affected thrust reverser accumulators equipped on other Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, and 25F airplanes, we will consider further rulemaking.

Operators should note that on August 12, 2005 we issued an NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2005-22169 (70 FR 49210, August 23, 2005), related to the unsafe condition of this AD. The related NPRM proposes to require replacement of the spherical accumulator for the main hydraulic system with a new cylindrical accumulator. The related NPRM is applicable to certain Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, and 25F airplanes. The spherical accumulator used for the main airplane hydraulic system on those Learjet model airplanes is similar to the spherical accumulator used for the thrust reverser hydraulic system addressed in this AD. The actions proposed in the related NPRM are intended to prevent failure of the spherical accumulator for the main hydraulic system, due to fatigue cracking on the threads, which could result in the loss of hydraulic power, damage to the surrounding airplane structure, and loss of airplane control. The failure of the accumulator could also result in injury to any persons in the surrounding area. The loss of hydraulic fluid could also leak onto a potential source of ignition and result in a consequent fire.

One commenter recommends adding information about the final action being developed under FAA project ST8103SC-T. The commenter states that referencing the proposed STC number would provide information to operators about the final action.

We do not agree. As stated in an earlier comment, we may consider additional rulemaking once a modification is developed, approved, and available. Therefore no change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that we eliminate repetitive inspections of the thrust reverser (at intervals of 300 and 600 flight hours). The commenter suggests these inspections are unnecessary if a thrust reverser is deactivated.

We do not agree because this AD and the referenced service bulletin do not require repetitive inspections of the thrust reverser. We infer that the commenter is referring to the repetitive inspections of the thrust reversers specified in The Nordam Group TR3000 Service Manual DHP-G-25-1. These repetitive inspections are part of the maintenance program for STCs SA1731SW, SA1669SW, and SA1670SW. After making the thrust reverser accumulator inoperable, operators should do repetitive general visual inspections of the thrust reverser system for cracking, corrosion, loose or missing fasteners, etc., to ensure the structural integrity of the thrust reverser. (The Nordam Group has issued Temporary Revision 78-04, dated July 8, 2005, to the TR3000 Service Manual to add these new repetitive inspections.) Operational checks should no longer be done after the thrust reverser accumulator is inoperable. Operators may contact the Manager, Special Certification Office, ASW-190, Rotorcraft Directorate, for the revised maintenance inspection program. No change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

In paragraph (c) of the NPRM, we inadvertently omitted the word “accumulators” where the applicability identifies the part numbers of the affected thrust reverser accumulators. We have added “accumulators” before the affected part numbers in paragraph (c) of this AD to clarify the applicability.

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

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

This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it currently is developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition addressed by this proposed AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.

There are about 321 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 255 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions in this AD take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $33,150, or $130 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Saab Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2005 (70 FR 52041). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the manual feather-and-unfeather system for the propellers to make the design of the system more robust.

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

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

This AD will affect about 3 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions will take about 50 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $13,571 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $50,463, or $16,821 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2001-16-14, amendment 39-12383 (66 FR 42939, August 16, 2001). The existing AD applies to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2005 (70 FR 42005). That supplemental NPRM proposed to mandate the installation of placards on the modified girt bars, which terminates the repetitive functional tests required by the existing AD.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the additional comment that has been received on the supplemental NPRM. The commenter supports the supplemental NPRM.

We have changed this AD to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

This AD will affect about 517 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The modification that is required by AD 2001-16-14 and retained in this AD takes about 7 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. The cost of required parts is negligible. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required modification for U.S. operators is $235,235, or $455 per airplane.

The functional test that is required by AD 2001-16-14 and retained in this AD takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required functional test for U.S. operators is $33,605, or $65 per airplane, per test cycle.

For airplanes that have not been modified in accordance with AD 2001-16-14: The new modification (including the new placard installation) takes about 17 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost about $5,130 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new modification specified in this AD is $6,235 per airplane.

For airplanes that have been modified in accordance with AD 2001-16-14: The new modification (including the new placard installation) takes about 21 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts cost about $5,130 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new modification specified in this AD is $6,495 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

The Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has received reports of elevator servo control removals resulting from the “F/CTL ELEV SERVO FAULT” warning. During repair, some of these servo controls installed at the active position (2CS1) (Left Green) or (2CS2) (Right Green) were found with a broken guide. The broken guides resulted in the inability for the affected servo controls to change their operating mode, leading to “F/CTL ELEV SERVO FAULT” warnings. Results of the investigation revealed a fatigue rupture inside the servo control induced by successive pressure cycles and resulting in a progressive decrease of the tightening torque of the plug to be the root cause of the broken guides.

Each elevator is equipped with two servo controls having three operating modes: active mode, damping mode, and centering mode. In normal operating conditions, each elevator is actuated by one servo control in active mode, while the other is in damping mode. The mode change from active to damping is achieved by a mode-selector spool valve installed inside each servo control. The position of this spool valve is commanded by a rod that slides through a guide. A broken guide could result in the inability for the affected servo control to change its operating mode.

Failure of the elevator servo controls during certain phases of takeoff, if not corrected, could result in an unannounced loss of elevator control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Airbus has issued All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-27A3138, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2005, for Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and AOT A340-27A4137, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2005, for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The AOTs describe procedures for repetitive tests of the elevator servo-loops and corrective actions if the test fails. If the test fails, the AOTs specify performing the associated troubleshooting manual tasks and applicable corrective actions. The corrective actions include repairing wiring, replacing certain solenoid valves, replacing certain mode selector valve transducers, and replacing the elevator servo control, among other actions, depending on the fault message displayed. The AOTs also specify reporting failed tests and sending replaced servo controls to Airbus.

The DGAC mandated the AOTs and issued French airworthiness directive UF-2005-171, dated October 3, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.

These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Therefore, we are issuing this AD to ensure proper functioning of the elevator servo controls. Failure of the elevator servo controls during certain phases of takeoff could result in an unannounced loss of elevator control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

This AD also requires that operators report results of failed servo-loop tests to Airbus. These required failed-test reports will be instrumental in ensuring that as much information as possible is gathered regarding the nature of the fatigue rupture causing the broken guides and that the new design of servo control to be used in a terminating modification, which the manufacturer is currently developing, will adequately address the subject unsafe condition.

The French airworthiness directive does not define what “corrective actions” should be taken when an elevator servo-loop test fails. We have verified that those corrective actions are the actions described previously under “Relevant Service Information.”

We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-22881; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-202-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319-100 series airplanes, Model A320-111 airplanes, Model A320-200 series airplanes, and Model A321-100 series airplanes equipped with certain additional center tanks (ACT). That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2005 (70 FR 48336). That NPRM proposed to require identifying the part number (P/N) of the ACT and, for certain ACTs, replacing the outer ACT manhole cover and seal.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the single comment received. The commenter supports the NPRM.

After the NPRM was issued Airbus released Revision 02 of service bulletin A321-28-1105, dated March 11, 2005. We have reviewed it, and it is substantially similar to Revision 01, which was referred to in the NPRM as the acceptable source of service information. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to Revision 02 of the service bulletin as the acceptable source of service information, and to give credit for doing Revision 01 before the effective date of this AD.

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

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

The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, and 25F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2005 (70 FR 49210). That NPRM proposed to require replacement of the spherical accumulator for the main hydraulic system with a new cylindrical accumulator. For certain airplanes, that proposed AD would also require modification of the accumulator pressure gauge.

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

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are about 434 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD will affect about 242 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions will take about 9 to 13 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $1,336 to $1,363 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $464,882 to $534,336, or $1,921 to $2,208 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes, and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48906). That NPRM proposed to require modification of the logic of the steering system of the nose landing gear (NLG) wheel.

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

Two commenters request that the NPRM reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104, Revision 03, dated June 21, 2005 (EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104, dated January 18, 2005, is referenced as an appropriate source of service information for doing the actions specified in the NPRM). One commenter proposes revising paragraphs (c) and (f) of the NPRM to reference Revision 03 of the service bulletin. The same commenter also requests that EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104, dated January 18, 2005; EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104, Revision 01, dated April 14, 2005; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104, Revision 02, dated May 19, 2005; be considered acceptable for compliance with the NPRM.

The same commenter also requests that paragraphs (c) and (f) of the NPRM be revised to reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-32-0020, Revision 01, June 21, 2005 (EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-32-0020, dated April 1, 2005, is referenced as an appropriate source of service information for doing the actions specified in the NPRM). In addition, the commenter requests that EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-32-0020, dated April 1, 2005, be considered acceptable for compliance with the NPRM.

We agree with the commenters. The procedures in Revision 01 of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-32-0020 are essentially the same as those in the original issue of the service bulletin. Revision 01 was issued to correct certain diagrams.

The procedures in Revision 03 of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104 are essentially the same as those in the original issue of the service bulletin. Revisions 01 and 02 were issued to revise certain figures. Revisions 01 and 02 were also issued to split the effectivity of the service bulletin into groups and clarify that serial numbers 14500839, 14500848, and 14500882 have an equivalent factory-incorporated modification and are not affected airplanes. Revision 03 was issued to update kit information.

No airplanes have been added to the effectivity of any revision of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104 or 145LEG-32-0020.

We have revised paragraphs (c) and (f) of this AD to reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0104, Revision 03, dated June 21, 2005; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-32-0020, Revision 01, June 21, 2005. We have also added a new paragraph (g) to this AD to state that actions accomplished according to the previous issues of the service bulletins are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.

We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.

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

This AD will affect about 620 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions will take about 6 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $49 and $391. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is between $272,180 and $484,220, or between $439 and $781 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. TCCA advises that during a complete aircraft fatigue test, cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead was found. Subsequent in-service reports show that fatigue cracking has been found on airplanes with as few as 17,821 total flight cycles. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity and rapid decompression of the airplane.

Bombardier has issued Canadair Regional Jet Temporary Revision (TR) 2B-2109, dated October 13, 2005, to the Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM), Part 2, Appendix B, “Airworthiness Limitations.” This TR incorporates repetitive special detailed and detailed inspections for cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead, in accordance with the procedures specified in the applicable task identified in the TR, into the MRM. TCCA mandated airworthiness limitations (AWL) Number 53-61-153 of the TR and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-13R1, dated October 6, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Therefore, we are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity and rapid decompression of the airplane. This AD requires revising the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness of the Canadair Regional Jet MRM by incorporating new repetitive detailed and special detailed inspections for cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead. This AD requires incorporating the actions specified in AWL Number 53-61-153 of the TR described previously into the Canadair Regional Jet MRM.

The initial compliance times specified in the Canadian airworthiness directive are different than those that are required by this AD. The Canadian airworthiness directive contains a phase-in period based on a previous issue of that airworthiness directive; this AD does not include those compliance times. This difference has been coordinated with TCCA.

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-22867; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-209-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Departamento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The DAC advises that there was an occurrence of an engine that shut down during flight. A low-stage check valve of the engine bleed system failed to close due to excessive wear. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an engine shutting down during flight.

EMBRAER has issued Alert Service Bulletin 170-36-A004, dated September 28, 2005. The alert service bulletin describes procedures for repetitively replacing the low-stage check valve and associated seals of the engine bleed system on the right-hand engine with a new check valve and new seals. The alert service bulletin also describes procedures to send the removed check valve to the manufacturer. The DAC mandated the alert service bulletin and issued Brazilian emergency airworthiness directive 2005-09-03, dated September 29, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.

This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Therefore, we are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the low-stage check valve, which could result in an engine shutting down during flight. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as described below in “Difference Between this AD and the Alert Service Bulletin.”

The manufacturer is developing further action on the check valves and the supply of check valves. Further action may involve action on the left-hand engine's check valve. We may consider further rulemaking to require actions on the left-hand engine in addition to the actions required for the right-hand engine.

The FAA recognizes that the unsafe condition could occur on both engines. Based on the most recent parts supply information from the manufacturer, there are not enough replacement check valves available to mandate actions on both engines without grounding airplanes for an indeterminate amount of time. However, there are enough check valves available to require action on one engine, which would reduce the possibility that both engines could have a failed check valve during a flight. We have considered the risks of a one-engine failure in comparison to a dual-engine failure, and the efforts by the manufacturer to produce more replacement parts. Based on this assessment, we have determined that modifying one engine reduces the risk of a dual-engine failure to the level that such action is sufficient at this time to produce an acceptable level of safety.

Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced alert service bulletin describes procedures for sending removed check valves to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.

This is considered to be interim action until final action is identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2005-22910; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-208-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This action will establish a Class E enroute domestic airspace area west of San Luis Obispo to contain aircraft while in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions and under control of Santa Barbara Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). On November 2, 2005, airspace will be transferred from Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) to Santa Barbara TRACON. In order to provide positive control of aircraft in this area, the airspace must be designated as controlled airspace.

Class E enroute domestic airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.9N dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 16, 2005, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order.

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

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

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 05-AWP-12.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct effects on the State, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(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 11304; 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 than will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Section 2003 of The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178 (1998) established a new occupant protection incentive grant program under Section 405 of Title 23, United States Code. Under this program, States could qualify for incentive grant funds by adopting and implementing effective programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from individuals riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor vehicles. The program, which made grant funds available from fiscal year (FY) 1998 through FY 2003, was designed to stimulate increased safety belt and child safety seat use. Funding was continued through FY 2005 by Congressional appropriations extending TEA-21 grant programs.

On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59. SAFETEA-LU extends the occupant protection incentive grant program from FY 2006 through FY 2009 by amending provisions of 23 U.S.C. 405. The legislation updates a grant condition that previously required States to maintain occupant protection program spending from other sources at or above average levels from the two fiscal years prior to the enactment of TEA-21 (FY 1996-1997). As amended, 23 U.S.C. 405(a)(2) now requires States to maintain spending from other sources at or above average levels from the two fiscal years prior to the enactment of SAFETEA-LU (FY 2003-2004). The legislation increases the amount of funds to which a State is entitled by amending the apportionment percentage and updating the fiscal year under 405(c). Prior to the amendment, a State was entitled to an amount equal to 25 percent of its Section 402 apportionment for FY 1997. A State now is entitled to an amount equal to 100 percent of its section 402 apportionment for FY 2003. The legislation also specifies that grant funds may be transferred among programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 405, 408, and 410. The previous legislation, TEA-21, authorized the transfer of funds among programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 405, 410, and 411.

SAFETEA-LU amends section 405(a)(4) to specify the Federal share to which a State is entitled. While the new program begins in FY 2006, the Federal share is based on the number of fiscal years, beginning after September 30, 2003, that the State has received a grant under the Section 405 program. Thus, counting back to FY 2004, for the first or second year in which a State receives a grant, the Federal share must not exceed 75 percent; for the third or fourth year, the Federal share must not exceed 50 percent; and for the fifth or sixth year, the Federal share must not exceed 25 percent. The determination of the Federal share for the predecessor program under Section 405 remains unchanged.

This document amends the provisions of 23 CFR part 1345 to reflect these statutory changes and to extend the occupant protection incentive grant program through FY 2009. We are amending § 1345.4(a)(1)(iv) to indicate that States must maintain aggregate expenditures from other sources at or above the average level of expenditures in FY 2003-2004. We are amending § 1345.4(b)(1) to specify that the amount of a grant shall be equal to 100 percent of the amount apportioned to the State under 23 U.S.C. 402 for FY 2003. We are making a number of other changes to § 1345.4(b) to specify the Federal share, based on the number of years that a State participates in the program. We are amending § 1345.6 to indicate that unobligated funds from this grant program may be transferred to programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 408 and 410. To clarify the application and certification process for State participants under the new legislation, we are adding definitions for “first fiscal year” and “subsequent fiscal years” in § 1345.3. We are also eliminating references to “section 2003 of TEA-21.”

We are changing the application due date in § 1345.4(a)(4) from August 1 of the applicable fiscal year to February 15. We believe that an earlier application due date is appropriate for the new program because less lead time is necessary for States to submit applications under the extension of this well-established program. The new due date will allow these grant funds to be awarded in time for spring national safety belt mobilization campaigns. We are soliciting comments from the States on this change in the application due date.

These technical amendments are mostly conforming amendments and will not impose or relax any substantive requirements or burdens on State grant participants. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for comment on these amendments (with the exception of the change in application due date) are not necessary under the Administrative Procedures Act. We also find good cause to limit the period for comment on the change in the application due date to 30 days. A limited comment period is necessary to give States adequate time after the effective date of the final rule to submit applications. A limited comment period is also justified because we are soliciting comment on a single issue.

The statutory basis for this rule is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59 (2005). SAFETEA-LU extends the occupant protection incentive grant program from FY 2006 through FY 2009 by amending provisions of 23 U.S.C. 405.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. This rulemaking document is not significant under Executive Order 12866 or the Department of Transportation's (DOT) regulatory policies and procedures. (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). The effect of this rulemaking action is to make technical amendments to the regulation governing the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant program, in light of new legislation extending the program. It will not impose any additional burden on any person. The agency believes that this impact is minimal and does not warrant the preparation of a regulatory evaluation.

We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this interim final rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking action makes technical amendments to the regulation governing the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant program, in light of new legislation extending the program. This rulemaking does not impose any change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the impacts of this rulemaking action on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the context of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The interim final rule makes technical amendments to a regulation governing the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program. States are the recipients of any funds awarded under this program, and they are not considered to be small entities, as that term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly, we have not prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” This interim final rule does not change the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. This interim final rule merely extends the occupant protection incentive grant program through FY 2009, as directed by statute. We are soliciting public comment on one substantive change made in this interim final rule—the change in application due date in Section 1345.4(b)(4) from August 1 of the applicable fiscal year to February 15.

This interim final rule does not add any new information collection requirements, as that term is defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320. The existing requirements have been submitted previously to and approved by OMB, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ). These requirements have been approved under OMB No. 2127-0600, through April 30, 2008.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This action will not result in additional expenditures by state, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

This interim final rule does not have any retroactive effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings are not required before parties may file suit in court.

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .

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

On July 28, 2005 (70 FR 43663), we proposed to approve 2003 plan amendments for the South Coast Air Basin (or “South Coast”), as the plan amendments pertain to attainment of the 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS. 1 We also proposed to approve revisions to the PM-10 plan for the Coachella Valley Planning Area (“Coachella Valley”). 2 We proposed to approve the plans” PM-10 motor vehicle emissions budgets for purposes of transportation conformity. Finally, we proposed to approve revisions to Rules 403, 403.1, and 1186 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulating fugitive dust emissions, and revised fugitive dust ordinances for Coachella Valley jurisdictions. These revisions update, improve, strengthen, and supplement the approved SIP provisions for control of PM-10 and PM-10 precursors in the two areas.

Our proposal was based on the following SIP submittals by the State of California:

(1) That portion of the 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (“2003 South Coast AQMP”), including motor vehicle emissions budgets, adopted by the SCAQMD on August 1, 2003, and submitted to us on January 9, 2004, that pertains to PM-10;

(2) the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (“2003 Coachella Valley Plan”), including motor vehicle emissions budgets, adopted by the SCAQMD on August 1, 2003, and submitted to us on January 9, 2004;

(3) revisions to Rules 403, 403.1, and 1186, adopted by SCAQMD on April 2, 2004, and submitted by CARB on July 29, 2004;

(4) revisions to the implementation handbooks for Rules 403 and 403.1, adopted by SCAQMD on April 2, 2004, and submitted by CARB on November 16, 2004; and

(5) revised Coachella Valley ordinances, which were adopted by the local jurisdictions on various dates in 2003 and 2004, and submitted by CARB on November 16, 2004.

Our proposal contains detailed information on these SIP submittals and our evaluation of the submittals against applicable CAA provisions and EPA policies relating to serious area PM-10 SIPs.

We received two public comments. The first comment was from SCAQMD (e-mail from Jill Whynot, dated August 26, 2005), requesting that we annotate Table 1 (“South Coast PM-10 Control Measures”), with a footnote updating information on certain of the measures, and Table 2 (“South Coast Emission Reduction Commitments), with a footnote providing an update on the implementation of measure CMB-07. We have inserted new footnote 3 in Table 1 and new footnote 1 in Table 2, below, as requested by SCAQMD.

With respect to the note on Table 1, the SCAQMD referenced material provided on Agenda Item #39 for the December 3, 2004 Governing Board meeting. 3 The PRC-03 emission reduction commitment for under-fired charbroilers was projected to be 0.2 tons per day (tpd) of PM-10 by 2006 and 1.0 tpd by 2010. Substitute reductions come from the implementation of Rules 1186 and 403. The reductions in excess of the AQMP commitment are estimated to be 0.7 tpd starting in 2005 for Rule 403 and 0.28 tpd for Rule 1186 starting in 2006, for a total of 0.98 tpd of PM-10. With growth factors applied, the reduction is estimated to be 1.04 tpd of PM-10 in 2010. Emission reductions from these two rules are not counted in the 2003 South Coast AQMP, and thus 0.28 tpd in 2006 and 1.0 tpd of PM-10 reductions in 2010 may be substituted for the SIP commitment for PRC-03. This ensures that the plan will continue to meet the requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

EPA is taking several related actions. EPA is making determinations that the Greene County and Jackson County, Indiana nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that Greene and Jackson Counties have met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA is thus approving requests to change the legal designations of the Greene County and Jackson County areas from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving Indiana's maintenance plan SIP revisions for Greene and Jackson Counties (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plans are designed to keep Greene and Jackson Counties in attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the next 10 years. Additionally, EPA is announcing its action on the Adequacy Process for the newly-established 2015 MVEBs. The Adequacy comment periods for the 2015 MVEBs began on August 2, 2005, with EPA's posting of the availability of these submittals on EPA's Adequacy Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm ). The Adequacy comment periods for these MVEBs ended on September 1, 2005. No requests for these submittals or adverse comments on these submittals were received during the Adequacy comment periods. Please see the Adequacy Section of this rulemaking for further explanation on this process. Therefore, we are finding adequate and approving the State's 2015 MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO X and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone.

The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the NAAQS. Greene and Jackson Counties were designated unclassifiable/attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which was revoked on June 15, 2005. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This new standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour standard.

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications became effective June 15, 2004. The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2001-2003) of air quality data. The CAA contains two sets of provisions—subpart 1 and subpart 2—that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as “basic” nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant—including ozone—governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 (which EPA refers to as “classified” nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Some ozone nonattainment areas are subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other ozone nonattainment areas are also subject to the provisions of subpart 2. Under EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule, signed on April 15, 2004, (69 FR 23951) an area was classified under subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value ( i.e. , the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 of subpart 2). All other areas are covered under subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values. Both Greene and Jackson Counties were designated as subpart 1, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas by EPA on April 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857) based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003.

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm ( i.e. , 0.084 ppm) when rounding is considered. (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50.

On July 15, 2005, Indiana requested that EPA redesignate Greene and Jackson Counties to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. These requests were supplemented with submittals dated September 6, 2005, September 7, 2005, October 6, 2005, and October 20, 2005. The redesignation requests included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2002 through 2004, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been attained for Greene and Jackson Counties. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other four CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).

The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.

EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

On July 15, 2005, Indiana requested redesignation of Greene County and Jackson County to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Indiana supplemented these requests with submittals dated September 6, 2005, September 7, 2005, October 6, 2005, and October 20, 2005. EPA believes that the areas have attained the standard and have met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

Approval of the redesignation requests would change the official designation of the areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also incorporate into the Indiana SIP plans for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2015. The maintenance plans include contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS, and establish MVEBs for the year 2015 of 1.46 and 1.65 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 1.54 and 3.18 tpd NO X for Greene and Jackson Counties, respectively.

EPA is making determinations that the Greene County and Jackson County nonattainment areas have attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that the areas have met all other applicable section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The basis for EPA's determinations is as follows:

EPA is making determinations that Greene and Jackson Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

IDEM submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2002 to 2004 ozone seasons. The State quality assures monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 and the Indiana Quality Assurance Manual and records the data in the AIRS database, thus making the data publicly available. IDEM operates one ozone monitor in Greene County (18-055-0001) and one ozone monitor in Jackson County (18-071-0001). The data for 2002-2004 have been quality assured and are recorded in AIRS. For Greene County, data completeness was 100% for 2002-2004. For Jackson County, data completeness averaged 100%, 100% and 98% in 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively. The four highest 8-hour average readings for the Greene County and Jackson County ozone monitoring sites for the years 2002 to 2004 are presented in Tables 1 and 2 below:

It should be noted that preliminary 2005 monitoring data for Greene and Jackson Counties show that the areas continue to attain the 8-hour ozone standard.

In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance plan, IDEM has committed to continue monitoring in these areas in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Indiana provide an adequate demonstration that Greene and Jackson Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

We have determined that Indiana has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for Greene and Jackson Counties under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have also determined that the Indiana SIP meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under Part D of Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to Subpart 1 nonattainment areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, we have determined that the Indiana SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, we have ascertained what SIP requirements are applicable to the areas for purposes of redesignation, and have determined that the portions of the SIP meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA.

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (see “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, to qualify for redesignation of an area to attainment, the state and the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (Mar. 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).

General SIP requirements. Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; provisions for air quality modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address transport of air pollutants (NO X SIP Call, 1 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.

We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures in evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Any section 110 requirements that are linked to the part D requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are not yet due, since, as explained below, no Part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour standard became due prior to submission of the redesignation requests. Therefore, as discussed above, for purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicable requirements.

Part D Requirements. EPA has determined that the Indiana SIP meets applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA since no requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation became due for the 8-hour ozone standard prior to submission of the Greene County or Jackson County redesignation request. Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainment classification. Greene and Jackson Counties were both classified as subpart 1 nonattainment areas, and therefore subpart 2 requirements do not apply.

Part D, Subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. For purposes of evaluating these redesignation requests, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for Greene and Jackson Counties are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).

No requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D became due prior to submission of the redesignation requests, and, therefore, none is applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation. Since the State of Indiana has submitted complete ozone redesignation requests for Greene and Jackson Counties prior to the deadline for any submissions required for purposes of redesignation, we have determined that these requirements do not apply to the Greene County and Jackson County areas for purposes of redesignation.

Furthermore, EPA has determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Indiana has demonstrated that the areas will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will become effective in Greene and Jackson Counties upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

Section 176 conformity requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities, including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.

EPA approved Indiana's general conformity SIP on January 14, 1998 (63 FR 2146). Indiana does not have a Federally approved transportation conformity SIP. However, conformity analyses are performed pursuant to EPA's Federal conformity rules. Indiana has submitted on-highway motor vehicle budgets for Greene and Jackson Counties of 1.46 and 1.65 tpd of VOC and 1.54 and 3.18 tpd of NO X , respectively, based on the areas' 2015 level of emissions. Greene and Jackson Counties must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval.

EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement conformity under Federal rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). Thus, the areas have satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

EPA has fully approved the Indiana SIP for Greene and Jackson Counties under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Indiana has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements applicable to Greene and Jackson Counties under the 1-hour ozone standard. No Greene or Jackson County area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation did not become due prior to submission of the redesignation request, they also are, therefore, not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

EPA believes that Indiana has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in Greene and Jackson Counties is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.

In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change in emissions between 1999 and 2002, one of the years Greene and Jackson Counties monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Indiana has implemented in recent years. Greene and Jackson Counties are both rural and their air quality is significantly impacted by the transport of ozone from upwind counties. Therefore, local controls as well as controls implemented in upwind counties are relevant to the improvement in air quality in both Greene and Jackson Counties.

The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures that have been implemented in the areas:

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). Greene and Jackson Counties were not previously required to be covered by RACT regulations for existing sources under the CAA. However, Indiana has implemented statewide RACT controls through the following regulations:

NO X rules . In compliance with EPA's NO X SIP call, Indiana developed rules to control NO X emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns. These rules required sources to begin reducing NO X emissions in 2004, with emission reductions increasing to 31 percent statewide by 2007. It should be noted that statewide NO X emissions actually began to decline in 2002 as sources phased in emission controls needed to comply with the State's NO X emission control regulations. From 2004 on, NO X emissions from EGUs are capped at a statewide total well below pre-2002 levels. It should be noted that NO X emissions are expected to further decline as the State meets the requirements of EPA's Phase II NO X SIP call (69 FR 21604).

Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and NO X emissions have occurred statewide as a result of Federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future as additional emission controls are implemented. Federal emission control measures have included: the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards. In addition, in 2004, EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule (69 FR 38958). This rule will reduce off-road diesel emissions through 2010, with emission reductions starting in 2008.

Indiana is using 1999 for the nonattainment inventory. Emissions estimates were taken directly from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), with the following exceptions. Point source emissions information was compiled from IDEM's 1999 annual emissions statement database. Onroad emissions for Jackson county were calculated using MOBILE 6.2.

For comparison, IDEM developed an inventory for 2002, one of the years the area monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. The point source sector information was compiled from IDEM's 2002 annual emissions statement database and the 2002 EPA Air Markets acid rain database. The area source sector information was taken from the Indiana 2002 periodic inventory submitted to EPA. These projections were made from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis growth factors with some updated local information. The nonroad sector emission estimates were developed using NONROAD with the following modifications. Emissions were estimated for two nonroad categories not included in NONROAD, commercial marine vessels and railroads. Recreational motorboat population and spatial surrogates (used to assign emissions to each county) were updated. The populations for the construction equipment category were reviewed and updated based upon surveys completed in the Midwest and the temporal allocation for agricultural sources was also updated. The onroad sector emissions were calculated using MOBILE 6.2.

Based on the inventories described above, Indiana's submittal documents changes in VOC and NO X emissions from 1999 to 2002 for Greene and Jackson Counties. IDEM also documented this information for upwind areas in Southwest (Daviess, Dubois, Gibson, Knox, Martin, Pike, Vanderburgh and Warrick Counties) and South central (Clark, Floyd, Harrison, Jefferson and Scott Counties) Indiana. (We will refer to these areas, collectively, as Southern Indiana.) Emissions data are shown in Tables 3 through 7 below.

Table 5 shows that Greene County reduced VOC emissions by 1.03 tpd and NO X emissions by 0.60 tpd between 1999 and 2002. Table 6 shows that Jackson County reduced VOC emissions by 3.28 tpd and NO X emissions by 2.49 tpd between 1999 and 2002. Table 7 shows that the upwind area in Southern Indiana reduced VOC emissions by 19.79 tpd and NO X emissions by 72.71 tpd between 1999 and 2002.

Based on the information summarized above, Indiana has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.

In conjunction with its requests to redesignate the Greene County and Jackson County nonattainment areas to attainment status, Indiana submitted SIP revisions to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Greene and Jackson Counties for at least 10 years after redesignation.

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone violations.

The September 4, 1992 John Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. An ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: the attainment VOC and NO X emissions inventories, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.

The State developed an inventory for 2002, one of the years the area monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS. Inventory methodology is described in section 3 above. The attainment level of emissions are summarized in Table 8 below.

As part of the redesignation requests, IDEM submitted revisions to the 8-hour ozone SIPs to include 10-year maintenance plans as required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. For Greene County, this demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO X remain at or below attainment year emission levels. For Jackson County this demonstration consists of a combination of emissions projections and modeling. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA , 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA , 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).

Using the 2002 attainment inventory as the base year, IDEM developed projected emissions inventories for 2010 and 2015. Onroad mobile source emissions were projected using Mobile 6.2 in accordance with “Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,” EPA-45/4-91-019. Emissions for the point, area and nonroad sectors were projected using growth and control files developed by the Midwest Regional Planning Organization. This method was used to ensure that the inventories used for redesignation are consistent with modeling performed in the future. These emission estimates are presented in Tables 9-11 below.

The Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as amended, (“ACA”) (16 U.S.C. 2401 et seq. ) implements the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (“the Protocol”). Annex II of the Protocol contains provisions for conservation of native Antarctic plants and animals. Annex V contains provisions for the protection of specially designated areas. Section 2405 of title 16 of the ACA directs the Director of the National Science Foundation to issue such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to implement Annexes II and V to the Protocol.

The Antarctic Treaty Parties periodically adopt measures to establish additional specially protected areas, specially managed areas and historical sites or monuments in Antarctica. This rule is being revised to add two additional Antarctic specially protected areas, all specially managed areas and a comprehensive list of designated historical sites and monuments in Antarctica. The revisions also reiterate the ACA's prohibition on entering or engaging in activities within an Antarctic Specially Protected Area unless authorized by permit as well as the ACA's blanket prohibition on damaging, removing or destroying a Historic Site or Monument. No public comment is needed the addition of these areas or sites merely implements measures adopted by the Treaty Parties at various ATCM meetings.

Finally, these amendments correct typographical errors in the names and numerical listings of several specially protected areas previously published in § 670.29.

NSF has determined, under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866, that this rule is not a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, exempt from the notice requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act and from regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Although this rule is exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it has nonetheless been determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), these amendments to the existing regulations do not change the collection of information requirements contained in NSF's existing regulations, which have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-06 Correction is issued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Unless otherwise specified, all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other directive material contained in FAC 2005-06 Correction are effective November 14, 2005.