FSIS periodically issues regulations that require changes in the labeling of meat and poultry food products. Many meat and poultry establishments also produce non-meat and non-poultry food products subject to the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA also periodically issues regulations that require changes in the labeling of such food products.

FSIS established the approach, starting in December 2004 (69 FR 74405), that it will set uniform compliance dates in two year increments and periodically issue final rules announcing those dates. This approach is similar to that employed by FDA. Two year increments enhance the industry's ability to make orderly adjustments to new labeling requirements without unduly exposing consumers to outdated labels. With this approach to effecting compliance, the meat and poultry products industry is able to plan for the use of label inventories and to develop new labeling materials that meet the requirements of all labeling regulations made within the two year period, thereby minimizing the economic impact of labeling changes. By establishing a uniform compliance date that is the same as FDA's, FSIS is providing meat and poultry product manufacturers with a greater ability to adjust production plans to new labeling requirements across all of their product lines.

Establishing this policy also serves consumers' interests, because the cost of multiple short-term label revisions that would otherwise occur would likely be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

It will remain FSIS' policy to encourage industry to comply with new labeling regulations as quickly as feasible. Thus, when industry members voluntarily change their labels, they should consider incorporating any new requirements that have been published as final regulations up to that time.

The new uniform compliance date will apply only to final FSIS regulations that require changes in the labeling of meat and poultry products and that are published after January 1, 2007, and before December 31, 2008. In each of these regulations, FSIS will specifically identify January 1, 2010, as the compliance date. All meat and poultry food products that are subject to labeling regulations promulgated between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2008, will be required to comply with these regulations when introduced into commerce on or after January 1, 2010. If any food labeling regulation involves special circumstances that justify a compliance date other than January 1, 2010, the Agency will determine for that regulation an appropriate compliance date, which will be specified when the final regulation is published.

In rulemaking that began with the publication of a proposed rule on May 4, 2004, FSIS provided notice and solicited comments on the concept of establishing uniform compliance dates for labeling requirements (69 FR 24539). FSIS received only four comments, all fully supportive of the policy to set uniform compliance dates. Therefore, FSIS finds that further rulemaking for the establishment of uniform compliance dates for labeling requirements is unnecessary. However, FSIS is providing an opportunity for comment on whether the uniform compliance date established in this final rule should be modified or revoked.

FSIS has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). This action has been determined to be not significant and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Establishing a uniform compliance date for all future Federal food product labeling regulations affecting the meat and poultry industry that are issued by FSIS over a two year period will eliminate potentially burdensome requirements otherwise faced by the industry.

The regulation also greatly limits the possibility of potentially conflicting compliance dates for labeling requirements developed for meat and poultry products and labeling requirements developed for non-meat and non-poultry products. It thus provides for an orderly industry adjustment to any new labeling requirements. Labeling changes in response to Federal regulations will likely be less frequent, and establishments will be able to plan for full utilization of their labeling stocks.

Establishing uniform compliance dates for food labeling regulations issued within specified time periods minimizes the economic impact of label changes for industry and may indirectly benefit consumers if cost savings are passed on in the form of lower prices.

This rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The uniform compliance date does not impose any burden on small entities. The Agency will conduct regulatory flexibility analyses of future labeling regulations if such analyses are required.

There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this policy under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

The establishment of a uniform compliance date for food labeling regulations is an activity that will not have a significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. Therefore, this action is appropriately subject to the categorical exclusion from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement provided under 7 CFR 1b.4(6) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this rule, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2007_Interim_&_Final_Rules_Index/index.asp.

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

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

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

Examining the Docket

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 McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60446). That NPRM proposed to require replacing certain attaching hardware of the bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left and right wing vent boxes with new electrical bonding attaching hardware, doing resistance testing of the new electrical bonds, and doing fuel leakage testing of the reworked nipple assemblies.

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

One commenter, Hawaiian Airlines, requests that we clarify what service information is acceptable for compliance with the AD. The commenter asserts that the NPRM states that the use of Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 2, dated July 19, 2006, is acceptable for compliance. However, the commenter states that, although Revision 2 of the service bulletin added a leakage test of the reworked nipple assemblies, Revision 2 states that no further work is required. Therefore, the commenter inquires whether compliance with earlier revisions of the service information will be acceptable.

We agree that there may be some confusion here. Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2006; and Revision 2, dated July 19, 2006; both state that no further work is required. However, Revision 1 added a “leak check,” and Revision 2 states that a “fueling capacity and leak check procedure” has been added. In fact, the fueling capacity and leak check procedure specified in Revision 2 combines the fuel leakage test from the original issue of the service bulletin, dated April 16, 2004, and the leak check from Revision 1 into a single step, Work Instruction 3.B.14., “fuel leakage test.” Work Instruction 3.B.14. cites a different airplane maintenance manual (AMM) chapter than the original issue or Revision 1 of the service bulletin (AMM 28-11-00). Additionally, the remaining Work Instruction steps have been renumbered. However, if an operator accomplished the actions specified in the original issue or Revision 1 of the service bulletin prior to the effective date of the AD, and no leakage of fuel has since occurred in the subject areas, no additional work is required for compliance with the corresponding requirements of the AD. We have revised paragraph (g) of the AD to include the original issue of the service bulletin.

Another commenter, AirTran Airways, states that it supports the NPRM, but expresses confusion regarding the term “class ‘L’ ” that appears in Figure 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 717-28-0011, Revision 2. The commenter states that, although note (e) of Figure 1 specifies to: “Do class ‘L’ resistance test * * * ” and “Refer to SWPM [standard wiring practices manual] 20-50-01,” Section 20-50-01 of the Boeing SWPM does not identify a class ‘L,’ but rather provides a maximum direct current (DC) resistance and path for lightning protection. The commenter therefore requests that we clarify the reference to class ‘L’ in the final rule.

We partially agree. It is true that note (e) of Figure 1 of the service bulletin refers to a class ‘L’ resistance test, while Section 20-50-01 of the Boeing SWPM no longer refers to class ‘L.’ Class ‘L’ had to do with lightning protection, specified a maximum resistance of 0.0025 ohm, and appeared in earlier versions of the SWPM. However, although the term “class ‘L’ ” no longer appears in the SWPM, note (e) of Figure 1 of the service bulletin specifies the resistance test retained in the SWPM, which states that the maximum resistance must not exceed 2.5 milliohms (0.0025 ohm). We have determined that the term “class ‘L’ ” is not important in this context, and the directions of note (e) of Figure 1 of the service bulletin are otherwise acceptable as written; however, for clarity, we have added a note after paragraph (f) of the AD concerning this issue.

The same commenter notes that the compliance time in the NPRM does not match that in the service bulletin. The commenter states that the NPRM specifies a reduced compliance time of 78 months due to the nature of the unsafe condition, and that this difference has been coordinated with Boeing. The commenter suggests that the service bulletin should be revised to match the compliance time required by the AD.

We do not agree. As stated in the NPRM, Boeing concurs with the proposed compliance time. The compliance time is clearly stated in the NPRM. Therefore, there is no safety-related purpose for revising the service bulletin. Further, we do not have the authority to require Boeing to revise the service bulletin to match the compliance time required by this AD. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to pursue any change to the service bulletin.

The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) asserts that IBR documents should be made available to the public by publication in the DMS, keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA therefore requests that such documents be published in the DMS prior to release of the final rule.

We do not agree with this request. We are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

MARPA requests that, during the NPRM stage of AD rulemaking, the FAA state its intent to IBR any relevant service information. MARPA states that without such a statement in the NPRM, it is unclear whether we will IBR the relevant service information in the final rule.

We do not concur with MARPA's request. When we reference certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can assume we intend to IBR that service information, as required by the Office of the Federal Register. No change to the AD is necessary in regard to this request.

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 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 138 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 108 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 6 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The manufacturer states that it will supply required parts to the operators at no cost. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $51,840, or $480 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 FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 483). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

The MCAI requires operational limitation on takeoff with contamination and requires a pre-takeoff check in ground icing conditions and flight into icing conditions.

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

We further analyzed this AD and determined that the limitation that prohibits TAKEOFF WITH FROST, ICE, SNOW, OR SLUSH ON THE WING, CONTROL SURFACES, HORIZONTAL TAIL, AND AIR INTAKES, * * * should be * * * WING, CONTROL SURFACES, HORIZONTAL TAIL, OR AIR INTAKES, * * * This meets the other airworthiness authority's intent and the FAA's intent of assuring that takeoff is prohibited if ice, snow, or slush is present on one of those surfaces instead of all the surfaces.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for the change described above. We determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

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

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 41 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,280, or $80 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 487). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

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

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

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $400 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $4,800, or $480 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

Examining the Docket

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 all Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77632). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new and revised certification maintenance requirements (CMRs).

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

This AD affects about 27 Model A330 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $2,160, or $80 per airplane.

Currently there are no affected Model A340 airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the required actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD to U.S. operators is $80 per airplane.

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

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

We have determined that this 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.

On November 7, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Mooney Airplane Company, Inc. Models M20M and M20R airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65062). The NPRM proposed to retorque the upper left and upper right engine mounting hardware as an interim action. The NPRM also proposed to remove the upper left and upper right engine mount attaching hardware, cut out and remove the upholstery and insulation between the fuselage tubular frame and the firewall, and replace the upper left and upper right engine mount attaching hardware with the new parts kit.

We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment:

Comment Issue: Jack Buster of the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) suggests that paragraph (g) of the proposed action be amended to include the Internet Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address for the relevant service information.

We agree with the commenter's (Jack Buster, MARPA) recommendation. We added the manufacturer's Internet URL address in the information on how to obtain the relevant service information.

Since the NPRM was published, the manufacturer has revised the applicable service bulletin to clarify the fastener torque requirement. The change does not change the intent of the required action and does not create any additional burden on the owners/operators. The AD will reference the appropriate service information: Mooney Airplane Company, Inc. Service Bulletin M20-292A, dated December 22, 2006, but will give credit to anyone who has already done the action per the original service bulletin.

We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We estimate that this AD affects 198 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to accomplish the required modifications:

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

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

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 the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

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

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26071; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-51-AD” in your request.

The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-80C2 series turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register on December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74873). That action proposed to require replacing certain installed part number (P/N) and serial number (SN) cast titanium weld-repaired forward engine mount platforms and cast titanium forward mount yokes, with a forged titanium or a non-welded cast titanium part.

You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

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

Commenters from Lufthansa Technik, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Airbus and Alitalia state that this AD is also applicable to the engines installed in the A310 and MD-11 airplanes. We agree. We inadvertently omitted the Airbus A310 and MD-11 airplanes from the Applicability section of the proposed rule. These airplanes are included in the Applicability section of the AD.

Commenters from Lufthansa Technik, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Airbus and Alitalia also state that because the AD mandates requirements contained in GE Service Bulletins, CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1206 and CF6-80C2 S/B 72-1207, the FAA should reference the service bulletins in the final rule. We agree. The service bulletins' accomplishment instructions contain information such as applicable Aircraft Maintenance Manual sections that would clarify requirements of the AD. A reference to the service bulletins is included in the Related Information Section of the AD.

Representatives from Lufthansa Technik and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines note that paragraph (h) of the applicability section identifies a weld repair in a redundant area of the yoke, but Table 3 identifies the weld repair in a non-redundant area of the yoke. The FAA needs to correct this inconsistency in the final rule. We agree and have changed the heading of Table 3 to read, “Weld-Repaired Forward Engine Mount Yokes Requiring Replacement That Have a Weld Repair in a Redundant Area of the Yoke.”

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.

There are 25 engines in service that contain the substandard forward engine mount platforms and 59 engines in service that contain the substandard forward engine mount yokes. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 84 CF6-80C2 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take 34 work-hours per engine to replace the weld-repaired cast titanium forward engine mount platforms and the weld-repaired cast titanium forward engine mount yokes. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required forward engine mount parts would cost about $12,168 per engine. Required forward engine mount yoke parts would cost about $39,560 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $2,866,720.

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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES .

On October 13, 2006, the FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-22-06, amendment 39-14803 (71 FR 63219, October 30, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes and Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 28, 2006 (71 FR 78096). That supplemental NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2006-22-06 and to require the previously optional terminating action (installation of a new horizontal stabilizer trim control unit (HSTCU)). That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require, for certain airplanes, re-inserting the applicable temporary revisions of the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the airplane flight manual (AFM) under certain conditions.

Since we issued that supplemental NPRM, Bombardier has issued new temporary revisions (TRs) to the AFMs as described in a comment submitted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (see “Request to Revise AFM Procedures” paragraph below). In the comment, the NTSB presents data to indicate that changes to the AFMs are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. We have coordinated with Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) on this issue and concur that changes to the AFMs are necessary. In consideration of these new data, we have determined that the AFMs must be revised to include the new TRs within 14 days after the effective date of this AD.

The FAA finds that, with respect to this additional requirement, since a situation exists that requires immediate adoption of this requirement, notice and time for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days. Therefore, this AD will include the requirements specified in the supplemental NPRM (except the proposed requirement to re-insert TRs to the AFMs), as well as the certain new requirements discussed below. The new requirements include revising the AFMs to include the new TRs. In addition, we are superseding AD 98-13-24, amendment 39-10615 (63 FR 34574, June 25, 1998). See “Request to Clarify Related AD” paragraph below. This AD restates the requirement of AD 98-13-24 to install a certain HSTCU and specifies that doing the terminating action required by this new AD (installing a new HSTCU) terminates that earlier requirement.

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

The NTSB requests that we revise the AFM procedures specified in the supplemental NPRM. The NTSB notes that the supplemental NPRM states that AD 2006-22-06 requires and the supplemental NPRM proposes to require:

• Revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise flight crews of procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions;

• Revising the Normal section of the AFM to require a review of the location of certain circuit breakers and a functional check of the stabilizer trim system [required only by AD 2006-22-06]; and

• Installing circuit breaker identification collars [required only by AD 2006-22-06].

The NTSB summarizes the guidance provided to pilots in the revised Emergency Procedures section as follows:

• Assume manual control of the control column and override the runaway.

• Press, hold, and release the STAB TRIM disconnect switch.

• If trim motion continues, pull the circuit breakers.

Based on the examination of corroded motherboards and findings during the investigations of the three previous incidents, the NTSB believes that the revised AFM procedures should emphasize that, likely in all cases, an uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer trim is a result of a short-circuit of the first officer's trim circuits. In addition, because the circuit breakers are accessible only to the first officer in Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, the NTSB suggests that the Emergency Procedures be revised to indicate that control should be immediately transferred to the captain's controls to arrest the runaway trim with the captain's trim switch. Finally, because the only way to arrest a failure mode that occurred only with the trim channels disengaged was to pull the circuit breakers, the NTSB suggests that the procedures should emphasize pulling the circuit breakers if the trim channels are disengaged.

We agree that the AFM should be revised. However, we disagree with the emphasis on trying to disengage the trim on the captain's side. We consider that it is possible to have contamination on the left- or right-hand side; therefore, both sides should attempt a disengagement.

We agree that control must be transferred to the left-hand side to facilitate access to the circuit breakers on the right-hand side. However, we consider that the first priority, after regaining control by the pilot flying, is to disconnect the system using the disconnect switches, and that control be passed to the left-hand side subsequent to this step.

We disagree with the suggestion to use the captain's trim switch to arrest the trim runaway. There have been cases identified of motherboard short circuits where operation of the trim switch would not arrest the runaway. Given the minimal time available to arrest a runaway, priority must be given to the most probable means of arresting the surface motion. These priorities are, first the control column disconnect switches, and second, the circuit breakers.

We also disagree with depending on the Engaged/Disengaged trim channels annunciation to pull the circuit breakers. Instead, the AFM will be changed to remove such reference from the procedure and require that the circuit breakers be pulled in all cases.

We agree to change the AFM procedure to reflect the changes below:

• Control column—Assume manual control and override runaway.

• Both STAB TRIM Disconnect switches—Press, hold and release.

• Control—Transfer to pilot (LH) side.

• STAB CH 1 and CH 2 HSTCU circuit breakers—Open.

The above procedures will be included as memory/immediate action items.

Bombardier has issued and we have reviewed the temporary revisions (TRs) specified in the table below.

TR 604/21-2 supersedes Canadair Challenger TR 604/21-1, dated October 3, 2006, and TR RJ/152-6 supersedes Canadair Regional Jet TR RJ/152-5, dated October 3, 2006. Both TRs describe revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the applicable AFM to advise the flightcrew of additional procedures to follow in the event of stabilizer trim runaway and to advise the flightcrew of revised procedures to follow in the event of MACH TRIM, STAB TRIM, and horizontal stabilizer trim malfunctions.

The new TRs must be inserted into the applicable AFM within 14 days after the effective date of this AD. We have determined that this revision is necessary to address uncommanded trim, trim in the opposite direction to that selected, loss of trim position indication and, in one case, potential loss of trim disconnect capability, which could result in conditions that vary from reduced controllability of the airplane to loss of control of the airplane. We have also determined that this revision provides a much more efficient procedure and a significant improvement for recovery from the stated unsafe condition. We have coordinated with TCCA on this issue. We have added paragraphs (m) and (n) of this AD accordingly to incorporate these AFM revisions.

We have also removed the “Reinsert AFM Revisions” paragraph from this AD (paragraph (n) of the supplemental NPRM). Because this AD requires new AFM revisions, operators do not need to reinsert the old AFM revisions that may have been removed in accordance with AD 2006-22-06.

The NTSB requests that we clarify the unsafe condition to state accurately the potential severity of uncommanded motion of the horizontal stabilizer trim on the affected airplanes. The NTSB states that the severity can range from major to catastrophic, based on the assessment of airplane performance under various runaway stabilizer trim conditions and the circumstances of the three recent reported incidents.

The NTSB states that pilots from Bombardier Flight Test, TCCA, the FAA, and the NTSB have performed a comprehensive assessment of Model CL-600-2B16 and CL-600-2B19 airplane performance under various runaway stabilizer trim conditions using full flight simulators, desktop simulations, and test airplanes. The NTSB notes that the consensus from those efforts is that, depending on the nature of the runaway condition, the risk assessment can range from major to catastrophic.

The NTSB also notes that the variables that affect the operational safety risk are the direction of the trim runaway, the ability to disconnect or override the trim, and whether the runaway is intermittent or constant. The NTSB states that the worst-case scenario (resulting in complete loss of airplane control) would be a constant trim runaway in the nose-up direction without the ability to disconnect or override the trim, and at the other end of the hazard assessment is an intermittent runaway trim in the nose-down direction with the ability to disconnect and override the trim. The NTSB has determined that the intermittent runaway trim scenario, if managed properly with no other extenuating circumstances, could be relatively benign; however, the NTSB explains that functional capabilities would still be reduced while crew workload and distress would increase, potentially affecting the crew's performance of other tasks. The NTSB concludes that this condition could end catastrophically if managed poorly or if other factors, such as weather, traffic, or other system failures, complicate operations.

We agree to clarify the unsafe condition specified in this AD for the reasons provided by the NTSB. We have revised the unsafe condition in the Summary and paragraph (d) of this AD to read:

Comair also requests that we clarify whether this supplemental NPRM supersedes AD 98-13-24. Comair asks if the following requirement for certain airplanes in AD 98-13-24 also applies to the supplemental NPRM: “replace the HSTCU with a new HSTCU having part number 601R92301-9.” Comair points out that AD 98-13-24 does not acknowledge replacing with a higher dash number (the supplemental NPRM specifies, and this new AD requires, replacement with a HSTCU having part number 601R92301-15 or higher dash number).

We acknowledge the need to clarify how AD 98-13-24 relates to this AD. AD 98-13-24, which applies to Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, serial numbers 7003 through 7112 inclusive, requires the installation of the HSTCU, part number (P/N) 601R92301-9, within 18 months after the effective date of that AD as a terminating action for other actions specified in that AD. Since AD 98-13-24 became effective on July 30, 1998, all Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes in the United States are required to be in compliance. If any airplane is imported, it must be in compliance with all applicable ADs, including AD 98-13-24.

As this new AD requires the replacement of a part already cited in AD 98-13-24, we determined that this could lead to confusion regarding applicability and result in unnecessary record keeping. This new AD requires that the HSTCU be replaced with a higher part number (HSTCU P/N 601R92301-15 or higher dash number).

Therefore, we have determined that this AD should supersede AD 98-13-24 as well as AD 2006-22-06 (the supplemental NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2006-22-06). We have revised paragraph (b) of this AD to read:

“This AD supersedes AD 98-13-24 and AD 2006-22-06.”

We have also restated the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 98-13-24 as paragraph (f) of this AD. We have revised the remaining paragraph identifiers accordingly.

All of the airplanes on the U.S. Register affected by AD 98-13-24 are already in compliance with the actions required by AD 98-13-24; therefore, the requirements and costs to U.S. operators described in the supplemental NPRM will not change. We have determined that providing notice and opportunity for public comment on superseding AD 98-13-24 is unnecessary before this AD is issued.

The Regional Airline Association (RAA), on behalf of its members Air Wisconsin, Mesa Airlines, PSA Airlines, and Comair, requests that we extend the 9-month compliance time for the terminating action to read, “within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.” RAA notes that TCCA mandated a 12-month retrofit from the TCCA airworthiness directive's published date in October but the TCCA's airworthiness directive is applicable only to the relatively small fleet of Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes that operate in Canada. RAA recommends that we consult with Sagem (the parts manufacturer) to finalize our decision on a suitable compliance period and to consider that the airworthiness concern has never occurred within the regional fleet, and interim operational measures are currently in effect.

Mesa Airlines states there have been no documented failures on the Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes and that the newly imposed circuit breaker identification and AFM revision will preclude an unlikely failure from becoming an incident. Mesa Airlines recommends that 6 months be added to the compliance time for these airplanes.

Air Wisconsin concurs with the comments from Mesa Airlines. Air Wisconsin states that it doubts that the parts schedule will be able to be maintained and notes that an optimistic parts schedule issued by Bombardier will have the operator installing parts into October 2007. PSA Airlines agrees with Mesa Airlines and Air Wisconsin that the 9-month compliance time is not realistic.

Comair requests that we contact Bombardier and Sagem to determine if the schedule is realistic and will not place an undue burden on the operators. Comair notes that it has received units that failed prior to first flight and that these occurrences are not allotted for in the delivery schedule. Comair also states that it is nine units behind in receiving upgraded units based on the proposed shipping schedule.

We disagree, because in developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required installation within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. According to Bombardier, enough required parts will be available to modify the U.S. fleet within the proposed compliance time. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (q) of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

The NTSB requests that we reduce the 9-month compliance time to do the terminating action specified in supplemental NPRM. The NTSB is concerned that this compliance time may not sufficiently protect the fleet of affected airplanes from this hazardous condition. The NTSB notes that although the three previous in-flight incidents all involved Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes, a review of FAA service difficulty reports (SDR) for Bombardier CRJ 100/200 airplanes revealed more than 500 anomalies with stabilizer trim in the last six years, including at least eight reports of uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer that were reported in that time.

The NTSB received statistics from the HSTCU manufacturer (Sagem Avionics, Inc.) that showed an average return rate of approximately 425 HSTCUs per year with approximately 10 percent of HSTCU motherboards found to have some level of corrosion. The NTSB states that none of these boards had corrosion on the specific pins that control the captain's trim commands, which is significant because in the event of a trim runaway, a command from the captain's trim switch could override an uncommanded trim movement caused by the first officer's circuits.

The NTSB states that various short-circuit scenarios were then extensively tested and that for every scenario tested (except for one), the captain's trim switch could be used to arrest or override a runaway trim. The NTSB notes that analysis of this condition to date suggests that any of the motherboards could be affected by corrosion and that corrosion can usually only be detected by disassembly of the HSTCU. The NTSB points out that HSTCUs with extensively corroded motherboards have passed built-in-test-equipment tests, as well as the manufacturer's acceptance test procedure, which could result in faulty HSTCUs not being removed from service. The NTSB adds that the boards examined were not cleaned sufficiently following the manufacturing process, which, in conjunction with sufficient moisture by condensation, could result in corrosion and pin-to-pin shorting and lead to trim runaway or several less significant anomalies. The NTSB states that the sampling of corroded boards would suggest that perhaps 50 airplanes are currently operating with contaminated motherboards, which, when coupled with sufficient moisture, will cause malfunctions. Data evaluated so far by NTSB investigators suggests that corrosion-induced runaway events occur randomly, independent of the age of the affected motherboard.

The NTSB notes that a continuing airworthiness assessment performed by Bombardier estimated the probability of the corrosion failure mode causing uncommanded continuous trim movement at full speed of the horizontal stabilizer without disconnect capability to be 7.6 × 10 − 8 per flight hour. However, the NTSB believes that, regardless of trim runaway direction or disconnect capability, any uncommanded runaway event presents the flight crew with a hazardous situation that, depending on other operational factors, may result in an accident. Accordingly, using the three in-flight incidents, the eight events from the SDR database, and the combined fleet history of 13 million flight hours, the NTSB believes a more conservative estimate of incident probability is 8.5 × 10 − 7 per flight hour. The NTSB believes that this estimate may be optimistic considering it is likely that more of the SDRs were actually trim runaway events that were not correctly diagnosed. The NTSB states that data provided by Bombardier indicates that the average combined fleet utilization is 2.8 million flight hours per year. The NTSB considers that the fleet may accumulate this number of flight hours over the AD compliance interval and therefore as many as two uncommanded runaway events could be expected to occur before the proposed AD is fully complied with. Even with this more conservative estimate, the NTSB notes that the three in-flight events have occurred very recently in the fleet's 13-million-flight-hour history, which suggests that some of the factors driving uncommanded trim events may not have been present or consistent over the entire history. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the true probability of future events, in particular over the compliance period, is difficult to estimate accurately.

The NTSB states that it is aware that Bombardier has been working with the HSTCU manufacturer to accelerate hardware production in regards to this AD. However, the NTSB is concerned that the FAA's proposed compliance time is formulated based on the quoted production rate and that uncertainty about the safety risk warrants priority consideration. Therefore, the NTSB strongly encourages the FAA to consider a shorter compliance time that provides reasonable assurance that the corrective action will be fully implemented without risking additional runaway events.

We disagree with the request to reduce the compliance time because in developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required installation within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. The FAA's and TCCA's harmonized position is that the stated compliance time of 9 months strikes the correct balance of risk mitigation. Bombardier has committed to the delivery of modified HSTCUs to meet this schedule. Any shortening of the compliance time may result in fleet groundings since there will not be sufficient modified HSTCUs available. However, as stated previously, we have revised the AFM procedures to provide a much more efficient procedure and a significant improvement for recovery from the stated unsafe condition.

Air Wisconsin requests that we remove the requirement for the airplane's first flight of the day functional test specified in the supplemental NPRM. The commenter states that the requirement was removed from the AFM at Revision 55 in July 2001 and therefore, there was no requirement to do this action for over 5 years until it was again required by AD 2006-22-06. The commenter notes that the terminating action in the supplemental NPRM allows operators to remove the temporary revision to abnormal procedures and the circuit breaker identification collars. The commenter concludes that the requirement for a daily functional test should be removed because the supplemental NPRM does not contain justification for retaining the test.

We partially agree. We intended in AD 2006-22-06 for the first flight of the day check of the pitch trim disconnect switch to give crews a way to know daily that the disconnect switch is available and functional, because use of the pitch trim disconnect can significantly mitigate the severity of uncommanded trim movement. Installing the modified HSTCUs required by this AD is terminating action for certain actions in AD 2006-22-06 and mitigates the higher risk of uncommanded movement. Therefore, the functional test is not necessary because the replacement has already mitigated the risks.

We have revised this AD to remove the requirement for this functional test in the Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (o)(1) of this AD to require the removal of the AFM revisions required by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD after the installation required by paragraph (o) of this AD is done. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes have had a history of pitch trim disconnect switch failures, which cause loss of both Channel 1 and 2 with resultant loss of pitch trim. We have been advised that exercising the switch increases wear and induces additional failures. That is the reason why this check was removed from the Canadair Regional Jet AFM at an earlier date. The Stab Trim System Reliability including switch reliability is covered in FAA Safety Recommendation 04.093. We have been strongly recommending a new switch, or a life limit on the existing switch, as well as other system improvements. Since Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes incur much less usage than Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, switch wear is not considered a driver and hence the Stab Trim Check was recommended for the Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes.

Also, since the Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) fleet already contains this functional test in its airplane flight manual, it will be recommended but not mandated that Model CL-604 crews continue to perform this functional test. Therefore, we have added a note after paragraph (o)(1) of this AD stating:

Comair requests that we provide an alternative method of compliance for the actions specified in paragraph (l) of the supplemental NPRM. Comair notes that paragraph (l) specifies to do the installation, for certain airplanes, in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147, dated September 28, 2006, and paragraph B.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specifies to do Sagem Service Bulletin HSTCU-27-011. Comair states that operators cannot “do” the Sagem service bulletin because units must be returned to Sagem for the upgrade. Comair states that this makes the installation a replacement of the HSTCU with the upgraded HSTCU. Comair states that the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) procedure for installation of the HSTCU, task 27-41-01-400-801, requires the same functional check and operational check called out in the referenced service bulletin. We infer that Comair requests that we refer to the AMM procedure as an alternative method of compliance.

We disagree. Operators are not required to do the Sagem service bulletin. Paragraph (o) of this AD (paragraph (l) in the supplemental NPRM) requires installing the HSTCU P/N 601R92301-15 (Vendor P/N 7060-10) or higher dash number in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147 (for Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes). Although paragraph B.2 of the Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147 states “Do the Avionics service bulletin HSTCU-27-011,” this AD requires only that the HSTCU be installed and does not require operators to perform the actual modifications.

In addition, we do not agree with referring to the AMM reference in this AD as a method of compliance for installing the modified HSTCU. The installation must be done in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147. Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147 refers to the procedures in AMM 27-41-01-400-801 for the installation. Doing the procedures in any revision of the AMM is acceptable for complying with the installation requirements of this AD. In addition, according to the provisions of paragraph (q) of this AD, we may approve requests for alternative compliance methods if the request includes data that prove that the actions would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

RAA also request that we revise the cost of the installation. RAA states that one of its members pointed out that the cost to upgrade to a unit “−10” is $15,000.

We do not agree to revise the cost of an upgrade to $15,000. Operators should note that when we calculate estimated costs, we do not consider job set up, close up, etc., to be part of the work hour calculation. Also, although the calculations in the supplemental NPRM used a figure of 11 work hours for installation, in fact, the only work hour numbers that should be used for the estimate should be 1 work hour for “Procedure” as specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-147. For the parts costs, we referred to the “Material Information” section in Sagem Service Bulletin HSTCU-27-011, dated September 22, 2006, which specifies a range from $0 to upgrade Sagem P/N 7060-9A that is under warranty up to $3,995 to upgrade a Sagem P/N 7060-8 or older version that is not under warranty. We have not revised this AD in this regard because the cost of compliance paragraph is not restated in this type of rulemaking action.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) requests that we disallow the removal of the circuit breaker identification collars that is allowed in paragraph (l) of the supplemental NPRM (paragraph (o) of this AD). ALPA states that procedures in place at several carriers rely on the crew's ability to readily identify the circuit breakers, and the existing circuit breaker collars facilitate that procedure. ALPA expects that even with the improvement represented by the supplemental NPRM, the procedures will continue to remain available to crews, so leaving the collars in place represents a safety benefit.

We disagree because the wording in the AD allows for the removal of the collars but does not mandate the action. The circuit breaker collars were considered an interim action for quick identification in the case of runaway trim with an associated pitch trim system disconnect failure. The installation of the modified HSTCUs is considered terminating action for this risk. Therefore, we are not imposing the additional requirement for operators to maintain the circuit breaker collars after the installation has already mitigated the risks. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.

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

Therefore, we are issuing this AD to supersede AD 2006-22-06 and AD 98-13-24 and to continue to require the actions specified in those ADs. This AD also requires doing the terminating action (installation of a new HSTCU), and revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM, which replace the existing revisions. This AD also requires the removal of certain AFM revisions.

As a result of superseding AD 98-13-24 and adding an action due to the new service information, we have changed certain paragraph identifiers and added others.

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-2006-26378; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-230-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 can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov .

You 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.

FDA is announcing that the name of the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science, which was established on January 22, 1990, has been changed. The name Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology more accurately describes the subject areas for which the committee is responsible. The committee shall provide advice on scientific, clinical and technical issues related to safety and effectiveness of drug products for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases, the quality characteristics which such drugs purport or are represented to have and as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility, and make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The Committee may also review agency sponsored intramural and extramural biomedical research programs in support of FDA's drug regulatory responsibilities and its critical path initiatives related to improving the efficacy and safety of drugs and improving the efficiency of drug development.

FDA is revising § 14.100(c)(16) (21 CFR 14.100(c)(16)) to reflect these changes. In this document, FDA is hereby formally changing the name and the function of the committee by revising § 14.100(c)(16). Publication of this final rule constitutes a final action on this change under the Administrative Procedure Act. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40(d) and (e), the agency finds good cause to dispense with notice and public procedure and to proceed to an immediately effective regulation. Such notice and procedures are unnecessary and are not in the public interest, because the final rule is merely codifying the new name and expanded function of the advisory committee to reflect the current committee charter.

On July 17, 2006, FEMA issued a letter to LFC finalizing the flood elevation determinations. In addition, the July 17, 2006 letter established a January 17, 2007 effective date for the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the listed community. The reason for this rescission is to allow FEMA to complete a thorough review and revision of the preliminary maps in light of recent identification of potential errors in the FIRMs. Contradictions have been identified in some areas between the printed maps and the digital data base that supports the maps. There are also questions concerning the locations of stream cross sections on the maps. These discrepancies could lead to incorrect interpretation of the flood risk portrayed in the maps, or even incorrect flood insurance determinations. Due to these issues, it is prudent for FEMA to complete a review and revision of these maps prior to them becoming effective.

Until FEMA completes their review and revision of the aforementioned FIRMs, and digital data base, the final flood elevation published in 71 FR 60865, October 17, 2006 for the listed community is hereby withdrawn in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104. Until further notice, the release of the FIS and FIRM for the listed communities has been postponed.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

NMFS closed the directed fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2793, January 23, 2007). The fishery was subsequently reopened on February 6, 2007 and closed on February 8, 2007 (72 FR 5346, February 6, 2007), reopened on February 12, 2007 and closed on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7353, February 15, 2007), and reopened on February 20, 2007 and closed on February 22, 2007 (72 FR 8132, February 23, 2007).

NMFS has determined that approximately 2,850 mt of pollock remain in the directed fishing allowance in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C) and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the A season allowance of the 2007 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be reached after 24 hours. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA after the 24 hours, effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 2, 2007.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 27, 2007.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until March 15, 2007.

This action is required by § 679.25 and § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA under the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP under the authority of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 680.

The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify and apportion the total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species and for the “other species” category, the sum of which must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 116,000 to 800,000 metric tons (mt). The final specifications set forth in Tables 1 through 22 of this document satisfy this requirement. For 2007, the sum of the TAC amounts is 269,912 mt. For 2008, the sum of the TAC amounts is 286,173 mt.

Section 679.20(c)(1) further requires NMFS to publish and solicit public comment on proposed annual TACs, halibut PSC amounts, and seasonal allowances of pollock and inshore/offshore Pacific cod. The proposed GOA groundfish specifications and Pacific halibut PSC allowances for 2007 and 2008 were published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75437). Comments were invited and accepted through January 16, 2007. NMFS received 2 letters of comment on the proposed specifications. These letters of comment are summarized in the Response to Comments section of this action. In December 2006, NMFS consulted with the Council regarding the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications. After considering public comments received, as well as biological and economic data that were available at the Council's December 2006 meeting, NMFS is implementing the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications, as recommended by the Council.

In December 2006, the Council, its Advisory Panel (AP), and its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), reviewed current biological and harvest information about the condition of groundfish stocks in the GOA. This information was compiled by the Council's GOA Plan Team and was presented in the final 2006 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2006 (see ADDRESSES ). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species= biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the GOA ecosystem and the economic condition of the groundfish fisheries off Alaska. From these data and analyses, the Plan Team estimates an ABC for each species or species category.

The final ABC levels are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised methods used to calculate stock biomass. The FMP specifies the formulas, or tiers, to be used to compute ABCs and overfishing levels (OFLs). The formulas applicable to a particular stock or stock complex are determined by the level of reliable information available to fisheries scientists. This information is categorized into a successive series of six tiers with tier one representing the highest level of information and tier six the lowest level of information.

The final TAC recommendations were based on the ABCs as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the total TAC within the required OY range of 116,000 to 800,000 mt. The Council adopted the AP's TAC recommendations. The Council recommended TACs for 2007 and 2008 equal to ABCs for pollock, deep-water flatfish, rex sole, sablefish, Pacific ocean perch, shortraker rockfish, rougheye rockfish, northern rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, thornyhead rockfish, demersal shelf rockfish, big skate, longnose skate, and other skates. The Council recommended TACs less than the ABCs for Pacific cod, flathead sole, shallow-water flatfish, arrowtooth flounder, other rockfish, and Atka mackerel. None of the Council's recommended TACs for 2007 and 2008 exceeds the final ABC for any species or species category. The 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) are unchanged from those recommended by the Council and are consistent with the preferred harvest strategy alternative in the EIS. The 2007 and 2008 TACs are less than the maximum permissible ABCs recommended by the Council's plan teams and SSC NMFS finds that the recommended ABCs and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of the groundfish stocks as described in the 2006 SAFE report and approved by the Council. The apportionment of TAC amounts among gear types, processing sectors, and seasons is discussed below.

NMFS finds that the Council's recommendations for OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts are consistent with the biological condition of groundfish stocks as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the total TAC within the OY range. NMFS reviewed the Council's recommended TAC specifications and apportionments and approves these specifications under § 679.20(c)(3)(ii).

Tables 1 and 2 list the final 2007 and 2008 OFLs, ABCs, TACs, and area apportionments of groundfish in the GOA. The sum of 2007 ABCs is 490,327 mt, which is lower than the 2006 ABC total of 500,625 mt (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006), while the sum of 2008 ABCs of 511,838 mt is higher than the 2006 total.

As in 2006, the SSC and Council recommended the method of apportioning the sablefish ABC among management areas in 2007 and 2008 include commercial fishery and survey data. NMFS stock assessment scientists believe the use of unbiased commercial fishery data reflecting catch-per-unit effort provides a desirable input for stock distribution assessments. The use of commercial fishery data is evaluated annually to ensure unbiased information is included in stock distribution models. The Council's recommendation for sablefish area apportionments also takes into account the prohibition on the use of trawl gear in the Southeast Outside (SEO) District of the Eastern Regulatory Area and makes available 5 percent of the combined Eastern Regulatory Area ABCs to trawl gear for use as incidental catch in other directed groundfish fisheries in the West Yakutat (WYK) District (§ 679.20(a)(4)(i)).

Since the inception of a State of Alaska (State) managed pollock fishery in Prince William Sound (PWS), the GOA Plan Team has recommended the guideline harvest level (GHL) for the pollock fishery in PWS be deducted from the ABC for the western stock of pollock in the GOA in the Western/Central/West Yakutat (W/C/WYK) Area. For the 2007 and 2008 pollock fisheries in PWS the State's GHL is 1,650 mt.

The apportionment of annual pollock TAC among the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA reflects the seasonal biomass distribution and is discussed in greater detail below. The annual pollock TAC in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA is apportioned among Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630, as well as equally among each of the following four seasons: the A season (January 20 through March 10), the B season (March 10 through May 31), the C season (August 25 through October 1), and the D season (October 1 through November 1) (§§ 693.23(d)(2)(i) through (iv) and 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)).

The SSC, AP, and Council adopted the Plan Team's OFL and ABC recommendations for all groundfish species categories.

The SSC, AP, and Council recommended apportionment of the ABC for Pacific cod in the GOA among regulatory areas based on the three most recent NMFS summer trawl surveys.

The 2007 and 2008 Pacific cod TACs are affected by the State's fishery for Pacific cod in State waters in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas, as well as in PWS. The SSC, AP, and Council recommended that the sum of all State and Federal water Pacific cod removals not exceed the ABC. Accordingly, the Council recommended reduction of the 2007 and 2008 Pacific cod TACs from the ABCs in the Central and Western Regulatory Areas to account for State GHLs. Therefore, the 2007 Pacific cod TACs are less than the ABCs by the following amounts: (1) Eastern GOA, 413 mt; (2) Central GOA, 9,468 mt; and (3) Western GOA, 6,714 mt. Similarly, the 2008 Pacific cod TACs are less than the ABCs as follows: (1) Eastern GOA, 428 mt; (2) Central GOA, 9,817 mt; and (3) Western GOA, 6,961 mt. These amounts reflect the sum of the State's 2007 and 2008 GHLs in these areas, which are 10 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent of the Eastern, Central, and Western GOA ABCs, respectively. The percentages of ABC used to calculate the GHLs for the State managed Pacific cod fisheries are unchanged from 2006.

NMFS also is establishing seasonal apportionments of the annual Pacific cod TAC in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas. Sixty percent of the annual TAC is apportioned to the A season for hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear from January 1 through June 10, and for trawl gear from January 20 through June 10. Forty percent of the annual TAC is apportioned to the B season for hook-and-line, pot, and jig gear from September 1 through December 31, and for trawl gear from September 1 through November 1 (§§ 679.23(d)(3) and 679.20(a)(11)).

As in 2006, NMFS establishes for 2007 and 2008 an A season directed fishing allowance (DFA) for the Pacific cod fisheries in the GOA based on the management area TACs minus the recent average A season incidental catch of Pacific cod in each management area before June 10 (§ 679.20(d)(1)). The DFA and incidental catch before June 10 will be managed such that total harvest in the A season will be no more than 60 percent of the annual TAC. Incidental catch taken after June 10 will continue to accrue against the B season TAC. This action meets the intent of the Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures by achieving temporal dispersion of the Pacific cod removals and by reducing the likelihood of harvest exceeding 60 percent of the annual TAC in the A season (January 1 through June 10). The seasonal apportionments of the annual Pacific cod TAC are discussed in greater detail below.

The FMP specifies that the amount for the “other species” category be set at an amount less than or equal to 5 percent of the combined TAC amounts for target species. The final 2007 and 2008 annual GOA-wide TACs of 4,500 mt are less than 5 percent of the combined TAC amounts for target species. The sums of the TACs for all GOA groundfish is 269,912 mt for 2007 and 286,173 mt for 2008, which are within the OY range specified by the FMP. The sums of the 2007 and 2008 TACs are lower than the 2006 TAC sum of 291,950 mt.

Congress granted NMFS specific statutory authority to manage Central GOA rockfish fisheries in Section 802 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199). The Council adopted a proposed Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program (Rockfish Program) to meet the requirements of Section 802 on June 6, 2005. The elements of the Rockfish Program are discussed in detail in the proposed rule to Amendment 68 to the FMP (71 FR 33040, June 7, 2006) and in the final rule to implement the Rockfish Program (71 FR 67210, November 20, 2006). The final rule became effective December 20, 2006. The Rockfish Program is authorized for five years, from January 1, 2007, until December 31, 2011. A brief overview of major provisions of the Rockfish Program which have implications for the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications follows.

The Rockfish Program allocates exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for primary rockfish species and for associated species harvested incidentally to those rockfish in the Central GOA, an area from 147° W. longitude to 159° W. longitude. The primary rockfish species are northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish. Secondary species are those species incidentally harvested during the harvest of the primary rockfish species fisheries and include Pacific cod, rougheye rockfish, shortraker rockfish, sablefish, and thornyhead rockfish. The Rockfish Program also allocates a portion of the total GOA halibut mortality limit annually specified under § 679.21 to participants based on historic halibut mortality rates in the primary rockfish species fisheries. The amounts of primary rockfish species, secondary species, and halibut mortality to be allocated to the Rockfish Program will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the Program. These amounts will be posted on the Alaska Region website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov when they become available early in 2007.

The Rockfish Program also establishes catch limits, commonly called “sideboards,” to limit the ability of participants eligible for the Rockfish Program to harvest fish in fisheries other than the Central GOA rockfish fisheries. Sideboards limit the total amount of catch in other groundfish fisheries that can be taken by eligible harvesters to historic levels, including harvests made in the State's parallel groundfish fisheries. Parallel fisheries are authorized by the State in its waters concurrent with the Federal fishery. Parallel fisheries catch is deducted from the Federal TACs. Sideboards limit catch in specific rockfish fisheries and the amount of halibut bycatch that can be used in certain flatfish fisheries. Tables 18 and 19 list the 2007 and 2008 final groundfish sideboard limitations. Table 20 lists the 2007 and 2008 final halibut mortality limitations.

In October 2006, the Council's recommendations for the proposed 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications (71 FR 75437, December 15, 2006) were based largely upon information contained in the final 2005 SAFE report for the GOA groundfish fisheries, dated November 2005. The Council recommended that OFLs and ABCs for stocks in tiers 1 through 3 be based on biomass projections as set forth in the 2005 SAFE report and estimates of groundfish harvests through the 2006 and 2007 fishing years. For stocks in tiers 4 through 6, for which biomass projections could not be made, the Council recommended the same OFL and ABC levels for 2006 until the final 2006 SAFE report could be completed.

The 2006 SAFE report, dated November 2006, which was not available when the Council made its recommendations in October 2006, contains the best and most recent scientific information on the condition of the groundfish stocks. This report was considered in December 2006 by the Council when it made recommendations for the final 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications. Based on the final 2006 SAFE report, the sum of the 2007 final TACs for the GOA (269,912 mt) is 5,544 mt greater than the sum of the proposed TACs (264,367 mt). The largest 2007 increases occurred for Pacific cod, from 44,705 mt to 52,264 mt (17 percent increase); rex sole, from 8,700 mt to 9,100 mt (5 percent increase); sablefish, from 13,700 mt to 14,310 mt (4 percent increase); and for pelagic shelf rockfish, from 5,461 mt to 5,542 mt (1 percent increase). The largest decreases occurred for pollock, from 70,507 mt to 68,307 mt (3 percent decrease); and for northern rockfish, from 5,900 mt to 4,938 mt (16 percent decrease). Other increases or decreases in 2007 and 2008 are within these ranges.

Compared to the proposed 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications, the Council's final 2007 and 2008 TAC recommendations increase fishing opportunities for species for which the Council had sufficient information to raise TAC levels. These include, Pacific cod, rex sole, sablefish, and pelagic shelf rockfish. Conversely, the Council reduced TAC levels to provide greater protection for several species including pollock, deep water flatfish, Pacific ocean perch, and northern rockfish. The changes recommended by the Council for the 2007 and 2008 fishing years were based on the best scientific information available, consistent with National Standard 2 of the MSA, and within a reasonable range of variation from the proposed TAC recommendations so that the affected public was fairly apprized and could have made meaningful comments based on the proposed specifications. Tables 1 and 2 list the 2007 and 2008 final OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts of the GOA groundfish.

Section 679.20(b)(2) requires 20 percent of each TAC for pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, and the “other species” category be set aside in reserves for possible apportionment at a later date. In 2006, NMFS reapportioned all of the reserves in the final harvest specifications. For 2007 and 2008, NMFS proposed reapportionment of all the reserves in the proposed 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75437). NMFS received no public comments on the proposed reapportionments. For the final 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications, NMFS apportioned as proposed all of the reserves for pollock, Pacific cod, flatfish, and “other species.” Specifications of TAC shown in Tables 1 and 2 reflect apportionment of reserve amounts for these species and species groups.

Sections 679.20(a)(4)(i) and (ii) require allocations of sablefish TACs for each of the regulatory areas and districts to hook-and-line and trawl gear. In the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, 80 percent of each TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear, and 20 percent of each TAC is allocated to trawl gear. In the Eastern Regulatory Area, 95 percent of the TAC is allocated to hook-and-line gear, and 5 percent is allocated to trawl gear. The trawl gear allocation in the Eastern Regulatory Area may only be used to support incidental catch of sablefish in directed fisheries for other target species (§ 679.20(a)(1)). In recognition of the trawl ban in the SEO District of the Eastern Regulatory Area, the Council recommended and NMFS concurs with the allocation of 5 percent of the combined Eastern Regulatory Area sablefish TAC to trawl gear in the WYK District and the remainder to vessels using hook-and-line gear. As a result, NMFS allocates 100 percent of the sablefish TAC in the SEO District to vessels using hook-and-line gear. The Council recommended that hook-and-line sablefish TAC be established annually to ensure that the Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ) fishery is conducted concurrent with the halibut IFQ fishery and is based on the most recent survey information. This recommendation results in an allocation of 283 mt to trawl gear and 1,997 mt to hook-and-line gear in the WYK District and 3,370 mt to hook-and-line gear in the SEO District in 2007, and 281 mt to trawl gear in the WYK District in 2008. Table 3 lists the allocations of the 2007 sablefish TACs between hook-and-line and trawl gear. Table 4 lists the allocations of the 2008 sablefish TACs to trawl gear.

In the GOA, pollock is apportioned by season and area, and is further allocated for processing by inshore and offshore components. Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the annual pollock TAC specified for the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA is apportioned into four equal seasonal allowances of 25 percent. As established by § 679.23(d)(2)(i) through (iv), the A, B, C, and D season allowances are available from January 20 to March 10, March 10 to May 31, August 25 to October 1, and October 1 to November 1, respectively.

Pollock TACs in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA are apportioned among Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630. In the A and B seasons, the apportionments are in proportion to the distribution of pollock biomass based on the four most recent NMFS winter surveys. In the C and D seasons, the apportionments are in proportion to the distribution of pollock biomass based on the four most recent NMFS summer surveys. For 2007 and 2008, the Council recommends averaging the winter and summer distribution of pollock in the Central Regulatory Area for the A season. The average is intended to reflect the distribution of pollock and the performance of the fishery in the area during the A season for the 2007 and 2008 fishing years. Within any fishing year, the underage or overage of a seasonal allowance may be added to, or subtracted from, subsequent seasonal allowances in a manner to be determined by the Regional Administrator. The rollover amount of unharvested pollock is limited to 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for the statistical area. Any unharvested pollock above the 20 percent limit could be further distributed to the other statistical areas, in proportion to the estimated biomass in the subsequent season in those statistical areas (§ 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B)). The WYK and SEO District pollock TACs of 1,398 mt and 6,157 mt in 2007 and 1,694 mt and 6,157 mt in 2008, respectively, are not allocated by season.

Section 679.20(a)(6)(i) requires the allocation of 100 percent of the pollock TAC in all regulatory areas and all seasonal allowances to vessels catching pollock for processing by the inshore component after subtracting amounts projected by the Regional Administrator to be caught by, or delivered to, the offshore component incidental to directed fishing for other groundfish species. The amount of pollock available for harvest by vessels harvesting pollock for processing by the offshore component is that amount actually taken as incidental catch during directed fishing for groundfish species other than pollock, up to the maximum retainable amounts allowed by § 679.20(e) and (f). At this time, these incidental catch amounts are unknown and will be determined during the fishing year.

The 2007 and 2008 seasonal biomass distribution of pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas, area apportionments, and seasonal apportionments for the A, B, C, and D seasons are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, except that amounts of pollock for processing by the inshore and offshore components are not shown.