At its May meeting, the NCUA Board issued a proposed rule to reincorporate the FCU Bylaws into NCUA regulations. 72 FR 30984 (June 5, 2007). NCUA received a request to extend the comment period on the proposed rule for two weeks. Although the Board wants to proceed expeditiously with reincorporation of the Bylaws, it believes a two-week extension will facilitate submission of comments without causing undue delay to the rulemaking process. Accordingly, the comment period for the proposed rule reincorporating the FCU Bylaws into NCUA regulations is extended until August 20, 2007.

The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This 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 proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28599; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-008-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0374, dated December 15, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

Airbus has issued A300-600 Airworthiness Limitation Items Document AI/SE-M2/95A.0502/06, Issue 11, dated April 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

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

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 138 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $11,040, 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27865; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-039-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/750XL/10, dated March 29, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

To prevent the cockpit door windows separating from their frames, * * *

The MCAI requires you to inspect the windscreen and cockpit door windows for signs of disbonding of the adhesive between the transparency and the composite window frame. If disbonding is evident, you must do the required modification.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd has issued Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/024 (embodiment of modification PAC/XL/0276), dated April 18, 2007, and PAC Drawing No. 11-03137 (undated). The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

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

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 40 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $50 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 costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $22,750, or $3,250 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28058; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-08-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Between March 1993 and October 2006, we received reports of 24 confirmed instances of oil loss from the No. 4 bearing compartment. Each instance resulted in the oil igniting and caused heat distress damage to HPT and LPT hardware.

International Aero Engines (IAE) attributes the oil loss to two root causes, fractures of the rear No. 4 carbon seal and insufficient oil scavenging. The fractures result from fracture of the HPT stage 1 disk metering plug due to high-cycle fatigue (HCF). Industry confirms five instances of fractured metering plugs between January 2001 and October 2006. Regarding the insufficient oil scavenging, Industry confirms 19 instances of distress of the HPT, the LPT, or both, caused by oil flooding the No. 4 bearing compartment between March 1993, and October 2006.

We have monitored industry's investigation, field actions, and service experience with this problem. However, we conclude that proposed corrective actions are inadequate. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in heat damage to critical life limited hardware such as the HPT stage 1-2 airseal. Damage to the HPT stage 1-2 airseal could cause uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require removing the parts specified in this proposed AD at the next shop visit, but no later than November 2008 for the V2500-A1 model or June 2011 for the—A5 and -D5 models.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 686 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. Of those 686 engines, the operators of nineteen V2500-A1 engines, thirty -A5 engines and twenty-one -D5 engines have already complied with the requirements in the proposed AD.

Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $45,037,165 per year.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed 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. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES .

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

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28620; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-090-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647- 5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.

We have received a report that an operator found a 1.65-inch crack on the station (STA) 1241 bulkhead fitting on the left side of a Boeing Model 747-200F series airplane that had accumulated 17,332 total flight cycles. The crack was at a fastener hole just above the canted pressure deck. The STA 1241 fitting was replaced on this airplane. The STA 1241 bulkhead fittings on Model 747 airplanes are 140-inch long aluminum forgings that extend from stringer 19 down through the pressure deck and attach to the wing rear spar. Cracking in the STA 1241 bulkhead fittings, if not found and repaired, can become large and result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

On January 16, 1990, we issued AD 90-06-06, amendment 39-6490, (55 FR 8374, March 7, 1990), for certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35999, dated March 31, 1989. That AD requires, among other actions, replacement of the STA 1241 bulkhead splice straps in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2283, Revision 3, dated November 1, 1989. We issued that AD to prevent structural failure of the affected airplanes. The date of that replacement is used to determine the compliance threshold for certain airplanes affected by this proposed AD.

On March 18, 1992, we issued AD 92-08-02, amendment 39-8213 (57 FR 12869, April 14, 1992), for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections of the STA 1241 bulkhead splice straps in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2283, Revision 3, dated November 1, 1989, and repair if necessary. Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2219 is an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for certain repairs required by that AD. The date of modification in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2219 is used to determine the compliance threshold for certain airplanes affected by this proposed AD.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658, dated February 22, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing repetitive inspections (internal surface high frequency eddy current and external ultrasonic) for cracking of the STA 1241 bulkhead fittings just above the canted pressure deck. The service bulletin also specifies a one-time determination of the edge margin at seven fastener positions on each side of the airplane. If the edge margin of a fastener hole is less than 1.35 times the diameter of the hole, the related investigative/corrective action is contacting Boeing for special inspection data. For any crack found during a repetitive inspection, the corrective action is contacting Boeing for repair data.

The compliance threshold for doing the initial inspection varies according to the configuration of the airplane, and according to the date of previous splice strap replacement or date of previous bulkhead modification as described above under “Other Relevant Rulemaking.” The thresholds described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658 are as follows:

• For airplanes in the original configuration, or as modified in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2219 (AMOC for AD 92-08-02): Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date on Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658, whichever occurs later.

• For airplanes modified in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2283 (AD 90-06-06): Before the accumulation of 5,000 flight cycles since modification in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2283, or within 1,500 flight cycles after the date on Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658, whichever occurs later.

The compliance time for doing the first repeat inspection varies according to the smallest calculated edge margin at the seven fastener positions on each side of the airplane. The earliest specified range for doing the first repetitive inspection is before the accumulation of 11,500 total flight cycles, or within 1,500 flight cycles since the initial inspection, whichever occurs later. The latest specified range for doing the first repeat inspection is before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 5,000 flight cycles since the initial inspection, whichever occurs later. Afterward, the repetitive intervals range from intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles, to intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

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

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

The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to do certain inspections and repairs, but this proposed AD would require inspection or repair in one of the following ways:

• Using a method that we approve; or

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

There are about 455 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 133 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 14 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $148,960, or $1,120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-28598; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-036-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

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

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

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

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

Boeing has found that certain failures will result in the center tank fuel pumps continuing to run after the tank has been depleted. Depending on the failure, pump low pressure may not be annunciated, or power may not be removed from the pump when the pump has been commanded “OFF.” Operation of the center tank fuel pump with continuous low pressure could lead to friction sparks or overheating in the fuel boost pump inlet. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

On September 24, 2002, we issued AD 2002-19-52, amendment 39-12900 (67 FR 61253, September 30, 2002), applicable to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, Model 747 airplanes, and Model 757 airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for maintaining minimum fuel levels, prohibits use of the horizontal stabilizer tank on certain airplanes, and prohibits the installation of certain fuel pumps. That AD requires concurrent removal of the currently required AFM revisions and insertion of new AFM revisions, requires installation of placards to alert the flightcrew to the operating restrictions, and prohibits installation of any un-inspected pumps. That AD permits the AFM revision and placard to be removed under certain conditions. Installation of a placard in accordance with paragraph (e) of AD 2002-19-52, amendment 39-12900, is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (h) of this AD.

On November 23, 2002, we issued emergency AD 2002-24-51, amendment 39-12992, applicable to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, Model 747 airplanes, and Model 757 airplanes. (We issued a Federal Register version of AD 2002-24-51 on December 23, 2002 (68 FR 10, January 2, 2003).) That AD requires revising the AFM to require the flightcrew to maintain certain minimum fuel levels in the center fuel tanks and, for certain airplanes, to prohibit the use of the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank and certain center auxiliary fuel tanks. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this proposed AD would terminate the AFM revision specified in paragraph (e) of AD 2002-24-51 for Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes that have the automatic shutoff system installed.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0081, dated February 16, 2006, for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0082, dated February 16, 2006, for Model 757-300 series airplanes. These service bulletins describe procedures for installing an automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps. Installation of the automatic shutoff system includes the following actions:

• In the main flight compartment, installing time delay relays in the P33 and P37 relay panels and installing automatic shutoff fuel test switches at the E2-1 rack stanchion.

• At the P11-3 and P11-4 circuit breaker panels in the flight compartment, adding new circuit breakers and replacing the light plate with a new improved light plate.

• Changing certain wire bundles in the P11-3 and P11-4 circuit breaker panels, in the P33 and P37 relay panels, between the P33 relay panel and the P5 overhead panel, between the P37 relay panel and the P5 overhead panel, and between the P11-3 circuit breaker panel and the P33 relay panel.

• Installing new wire bundles between the P33 relay panel and the test switch at the E2-1 rack stanchion and between the P37 relay panel and the test switch at the E2-1 rack stanchion.

We have also reviewed Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622N001-9, Revision January 2006 (hereafter referred to as “Revision January 2006 of the MPD”). Subsection G, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS AWLs,” of Revision January 2006 of the MPD describes new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems. The AWLs include:

• AWL inspections, which are periodic inspections of certain features for latent failures that could contribute to an ignition source.

• Critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs), which are limitation requirements to preserve a critical ignition source prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic inspection. Revision January 2006 of the MPD adds new fuel system AWL No. 28-AWL-20, which is a repetitive inspection of the automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity.

We have also reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0105, Revision 1, dated April 2, 2007, for Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes. This service bulletin describes procedures for replacing fuel control panel assembly part number (P/N) 233N3206-( ) (equipment number M10055) with a modified fuel control panel assembly, installing two secondary override pump control relays for the center tank fuel pumps in the P33 and P37 relays panels, and doing other specified actions. The other specified actions include the following:

• Changing the W2066 wire bundle located between the P5 overhead panel in the flight compartment and the P33 relay panel located in the main equipment center.

• Changing the W2070 wire bundle located between the P5 overhead panel in the flight compartment and P37 relay panel located in the main equipment center.

• Changing the W1230 wire bundle at the P33 relay panel.

• Changing the W1270 wire bundle at the P37 relay panel.

• Doing a functional test of the left and right primary and secondary override pump control relays.

• Doing a pump reversal test of the left and right override fuel pumps.

We have also reviewed Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-006, dated January 2007. Boeing TR 09-006 is published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, Revision January 2007 (hereafter referred to as “Revision January 2007 of the MPD”). Subsection G of Revision January 2007 of the MPD adds new fuel system AWL No. 28-AWL-26, which is a repetitive inspection of the power failed on protection system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0105 specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of BAE Systems Service Bulletin 233N3206-28-03, dated October 4, 2006. The BAE Systems service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the M10055 fuel control panel assembly, P/N 233N3206-( ), to provide protection from “uncommanded pump ON” situations. The modification includes rerouting the J2 connector wire bundles from the forward left main pump switch S2 to the left center pump switch S6, rerouting the J3 connector wire bundles from the forward right main pump switch S5 to the right center pump switch S7, and installing new tie clips to secure the rerouted wire bundles.

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

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

• Installation of an automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps.

• Installation of a placard in the airplane flight deck, if necessary. (Placards are necessary only for “mixed fleet operation,” which means that some airplanes in an operator's fleet are equipped with automatic shutoff systems while other airplanes are not.)

• Revisions to the Limitations and Normal Procedures sections of the AFM to advise the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for airplanes equipped with an automated center tank fuel pump shutoff control.

• Revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-20, which would require repetitive inspections of the automatic shutoff system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity.

• Replacement of fuel control panel assembly P/N 233N3206-( ) with a modified fuel control panel assembly, installation of two secondary override pump control relays for the center tank fuel pumps in the P33 and P37 relays panels, and other specified actions.

• Concurrent modification of the M10055 fuel control panel assembly, P/N 233N3206-( ).

• Revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-26, which would require repetitive inspections of the power failed on protection system for the center tank fuel boost pumps to verify functional integrity.

This proposed AD would also allow accomplishing the revision to the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with later revisions of the MPD as an acceptable method of compliance if they are approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

There are about 1,094 Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The estimated cost of parts in the following table depends on the configuration of an airplane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

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

Under the Clean Air Act, FDA, in consultation with the EPA, is required to determine whether an FDA-regulated product that releases an ODS is an essential use of the ODS. In the Federal Register of June 11, 2007 (72 FR 32030) (the proposed rule), we proposed to amend our regulation on the use of ODSs in self-pressurized containers to remove the essential-use designations of MDIs containing flunisolide, triamcinolone, metaproterenol, pirbuterol, albuterol and ipratropium in combination, cromolyn, and nedocromil. You may find copies of the proposed rule on the Division of Dockets Management Web site (see ADDRESSES ) and the GPO Access Web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html . If the applicable essential-use designations are all removed, flunisolide, triamcinolone, metaproterenol, pirbuterol, albuterol and ipratropium in combination, cromolyn, and nedocromil MDIs containing an ODS could not be marketed after the effective date of the final rule removing the essential-use designations.

In proposing to remove the essential-use designation for the seven drugs that are the subject of the proposed rule, we applied the criterion for removing an essential-use designation in § 2.125(g)(2) (21 CFR 2.125(g)(2)) to each drug. Under § 2.125(g)(2), an essential-use designation can be removed if it no longer meets the criteria specified in § 2.125(f) for adding a new essential use. The criteria in § 2.125(f) provides that * * * Substantial technical barriers exist to formulating the product without ODSs; the product will provide an unavailable important public health benefit; and use of the product does not release cumulatively significant amounts of ODSs into the atmosphere or the release is warranted in view of the unavailable important public health benefit. * * *

We proposed that the removal of the essential-use designations be made effective on December 31, 2009. In the proposed rule we said that depending on the data presented to us in the course of the rulemaking, we may determine that it is appropriate to have different effective dates for removing the essential-use designation for different drugs (72 FR 32030 at 32034).

The provisions in § 2.125(g)(2) that provide the procedures and criteria being used in this rulemaking require that a public meeting be held before an essential use may be removed. This notice announces the meeting that will be held to fulfill that requirement, which will also better inform the decisions we will be making during the rulemaking.

If you are going to speak at the meeting or submit a written comment, you may address any issue raised in the proposed rule or on any other issue that is relevant to our decision on the proposed rule. You may wish to discuss how the criteria described in section I of this document apply to MDIs containing flunisolide, triamcinolone, metaproterenol, pirbuterol, albuterol and ipratropium in combination, cromolyn, and nedocromil. You may also wish to discuss whether different effective dates are appropriate for different drugs (72 FR 32030 at 32034). We invite discussion of issues on which we specifically asked for comments in the proposed rule, including the following:

• Do the other available therapies provide adequate alternatives for each of the seven drugs from a public health perspective? (72 FR 32030 at 32034)

• Will production of albuterol HFA 1 MDIs be able to meet any increased demand caused by this rulemaking? (72 FR 32030 at 32035)

• Are portable nebulizers suitable therapeutic alternatives for cromolyn MDIs and nedocromil MDIs, and will use of portable nebulizers be important in meeting the needs of patients who are currently using cromolyn MDIs and nedocromil MDIs? (72 FR 32030 at 32037 and 32038)

• Does use of a single MDI containing albuterol and ipratropium in combination provide for better patient outcomes (e.g., fewer exacerbations or increased quality of life) compared to concomitant use of separate albuterol and ipratropium MDIs, and, if these improvements are shown to exist, should they be considered important public health benefits? (72 FR 32030 at 32039)

We consulted with FDA's Pulmonary and Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee (PADAC) at their July 14, 2005, meeting on the essential-use status of MDIs containing flunisolide, triamcinolone, metaproterenol, pirbuterol, albuterol and ipratropium in combination, cromolyn, and nedocromil. During the meeting, several PADAC members expressed opinions that MDIs containing cromolyn and MDIs containing albuterol and ipratropium in combination provide important public health benefits. You may wish to read the transcript of the PADAC meeting (available on the Division of Dockets Management Web site (see ADDRESSES )) or the summaries of the discussions at the PADAC meeting in the proposed rule and comment on our tentative findings that MDIs containing cromolyn and MDIs containing albuterol and ipratropium in combination do not provide important public health benefits (72 FR 32030 at 32037 to 32039).

There is no fee to register for the meeting, but registration is required and space is limited. Interested parties are therefore encouraged to register early. Limited visitor parking is available for a fee, and the Twinbrook Metro Stop is within walking distance of the meeting site. Early arrival is encouraged, as there will be security screening. You will be asked for government-issued picture identification by the security officers. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please include this information when registering.

Registration for General Attendees : Registration is required to attend the public meeting. If you wish to attend the meeting, you must register by July 25, 2007, via e-mail to: theresa.martin@fda.hhs.gov . Please indicate “Essential-Use Designation of Seven Drugs” in the SUBJECT line and provide complete contact information for each attendee (including name, title, affiliation, e-mail address, and phone number(s)). Upon receipt and review for adequacy of information, an e-mail will be sent to confirm registration.

Registration for Speaking Attendees : If you wish to speak at the meeting, you must register by July 25, 2007, via e-mail to: theresa.martin@fda.hhs.gov . Please indicate “Speaker- Essential Use-Designation of Seven Drugs” in the SUBJECT line. When registering, speakers must provide the following information: (1) The drug product, topic, or issue to be addressed; (2) the speaker's name, title, company or organization, address, phone number, and e-mail address; and (3) the approximate length of time requested to speak. We encourage consolidation of like-minded presentations to enable a broad range of views to be presented.

Agenda and Transcript : The agenda for the public meeting will be available on FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/meeting/ozone2007.htm . After the meeting, the agenda, presentations, and transcript will be placed on file in the Division of Dockets Management under Docket No. 2006N-0454 and on CDER's Web site identified previously.

Copies of the transcript may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 20 working days after the meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page, or on compact disc at a cost of $14.25 each. You may also examine the transcript at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

Regardless of your attendance at the meeting, you may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments related to the proposed rule by August 10, 2007. All relevant data and information should be submitted with the written comments. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with Docket No. 2006N-0454. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Public Participation: Because security screening precautions have slowed the delivery and dependability of surface mail to USAID/Washington, USAID recommends sending all comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal listed above (all comments must be in writing to be reviewed).

All comments will be made available for public review without change, including any personal information provided, from three days after receipt to finalization of rule at http://www.Regulations.gov.

Order of Precedence: The procurement of commodities and commodity-related services by other parties that are financed by USAID pursuant to 22 CFR part 201, as opposed to those that are procured by USAID, are not normally subject to 48 CFR chapters 1 and 7 (the Federal Acquisition Regulation [FAR] and the USAID Acquisition Regulation [AIDAR]). In exceptional circumstances where this part 201 is made applicable, pursuant to § 201.02, to a transaction that is subject to 48 CFR chapters 1 and 7, the latter shall take precedence in areas of conflict except under authority of a FAR or AIDAR deviation pursuant to 48 CFR 1.4 or 48 CFR 701.4; and § 201.02 has been clarified to so state.

Executive Order 12866 determination: This rule is significant under Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. USAID has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act statement: OMB approvals for information collections under this regulation are addressed in § 201.03 and Appendices A and B to part 201.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, USAID proposes to amend 22 CFR part 201 as follows:

On August 7, 2006, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 44600) proposed regulations § 1.1221-1(e), under section 1221(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. These regulations clarify the circumstances in which accounts or notes receivable are “acquired * * * for services rendered” within the meaning of section 1221(a)(4). A public hearing was held on November 7, 2006, to discuss these regulations. Only two individuals spoke at the hearing.

Additional written comments were received from interested parties after the period for comments closed and the hearing was held. Several of these written comments contained requests for private meetings. Because it is more appropriate to address the concerns raised in the comments publicly, the Treasury Department and the IRS are scheduling a public hearing at which taxpayers will have another opportunity to discuss the proposed regulations. The views expressed at the hearing will be used in the rulemaking process.

Most of the written comments focused on the length of time that the decisions have been outstanding in Burbank Liquidating Corp. v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 999 (1963), acq. sub. nom. United Assocs., Inc., 1965-1 C.B. 3, aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 335 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1964), and Federal National Mortgage Association v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 541 (1993). The Treasury Department and the IRS request participants at the forthcoming public hearing to focus on whether the interpretation in the proposed regulations is legally correct, and whether the decisions in Burbank Liquidating and Federal National Mortgage Association correctly applied section 1221(a)(4).

To attend the hearing, taxpayers must notify the IRS by Monday, July 23, 2007. Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing. To notify the IRS that you plan to attend the hearing and for information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the section in this document entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

On April 13, 2007, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the Explosives standard (72 FR 18792). In that notice, the Agency provided the public with ninety (90) days to submit written comments, until July 12, 2007. Several interested persons have requested an extension of the deadline for submitting comments explaining that they needed additional time to gather information and provide a thorough review and response to the proposed standard. OSHA is providing an additional sixty (60) days for the submission of comments. Accordingly, written comments must now be submitted (sent or postmarked) by September 10, 2007. Granting additional time to comment on the proposed rule will allow these and other stakeholders time to provide more thorough comments on the proposed rule, which, in turn, will give OSHA a more complete record.

You may submit comments in response to this document (1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your comments.

Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Comments and submissions in response to this Federal Register notice are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0032). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth.

In the Explosives proposal, OSHA referenced a number of supporting materials. Those references are posted in both Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov ) and OSHA Docket No. S-031 (which is available at http://dockets.osha.gov ).

Although all submissions in response to this Federal Register notice and all supporting materials cited in the Explosives proposal are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov and http://dockets.osha.gov indexes, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from that Web page. All submissions and supporting materials, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web page to submit comments is available at the Web page's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web pages and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

This document was prepared under the authority of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160 (6/5/2007)), and 29 CFR part 1911.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0163.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this notice will be posted in the regulations and standards section of our NSR home page located at http://www.epa.gov/nsr .

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-200-0699. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule published on November 7, 2006, is available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of the proposed rule is posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

Outline. The information presented in this NODA is organized as follows:

In November 2006, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(b), EPA proposed amendments to Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV) and Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG). See 71 FR 65302, November 7, 2006. In developing the proposed amendments, EPA used the best available data that it had before it at the time. Detailed background information describing the proposed rulemaking can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the docket in support of that rule.

During the public comment period, EPA received comments that the supporting documentation in the docket did not provide estimated impacts of the proposed annual monitoring provisions for open-ended lines and valves. To address this issue, we have reviewed data collected by Agency inspectors regarding the percentage of leaking open-ended lines and valves at petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities. We also collected screening values for the leaking open-ended lines and valves at petroleum refineries. We used this information to estimate cost and emission reduction impacts for monitoring at the proposed frequency as well as at alternative monitoring frequencies. We will consider only comments, data or information related to data, and procedures used in the impacts analysis. We do not intend to respond to new comments addressing any other aspect of the proposed amendments.

All the monitoring data and details of the procedures used in the impacts analysis discussed in this NODA are available at the EPA Docket Center described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

Subpart VV (and subpart GGG, which references subpart VV) currently requires open-ended lines and valves to be equipped with a cap, plug, blind flange, or a second valve. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed amendments, inspections conducted by enforcement agencies have found that many of these components are leaking due to improper installation. In order to reduce these emissions and increase compliance with the requirement to properly install the control equipment, we proposed an amendment that would require annual monitoring using Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. An instrument reading of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater would be considered a leak. As with other leaking equipment, repair would be required within 15 days after detection of the leak. Examples of repair attempts include tightening or replacing the cap, plug, blind flange, or second valve. Records of all monitoring results, each leak detected, and each repair attempted also would be required. Documentation of the total number of leaks and the number for which repair was delayed would be required in semiannual reports.

We are making available open-ended line monitoring data from enforcement agencies. We are also providing estimates of emission reductions and cost impacts for the proposed annual monitoring requirement as well as for more frequent monitoring scenarios. Separate analyses were conducted for petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities. A summary of the new data and the impacts analysis is presented below. Additional information is in the docket, including the data and documents referred to in the impacts analysis.

Inspectors from EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) monitored open-ended lines at 16 petroleum refineries. Instrument readings were collected from open-ended lines on an average of 3.5 process units per refinery. On average, 10 open-ended lines were found to be leaking at greater than 500 ppm per refinery (or 2.86 leaking per process unit). All of the monitored process units were subject to standards that require caps, plugs, blind flanges, or second valves for open-ended lines.

The percentage of leaking open-ended lines at these refineries was not available because the NEIC inspectors monitored only a fraction of the open-ended lines in each process unit, and they did not record the total number of open-ended lines per process unit. To estimate the percentage leaking, we assumed the number leaking per process unit from the NEIC inspections represented the total number leaking for an average refinery process unit, and we divided this number by the estimated number of open-ended lines for an average process unit. Based on the impacts analysis for the proposed amendments to subparts VV and GGG, we estimated that 195 new or reconstructed refinery process units with equipment in volatile organic compound (VOC) service would become affected sources in the next 5 years. Information on the number of open-ended lines for different types of process units at large and small refineries (see EPA-454/R-98-011) was used to estimate a total of 7,349 open-ended lines in VOC service at these 195 process units. This would mean an average refinery process unit has 37.7 open-ended lines in VOC service, and 7.6 percent (2.86/37.7) are leaking.

To the best of our knowledge, the monitored open-ended lines that were found to be leaking were in gas/vapor service or light liquid service. Based on information about the type of service for valves, flanges, and pumps in refinery process units (see EPA-454/R-98-011) we estimated that 27 percent of open-ended lines in refinery process units are in heavy liquid service. The resulting estimate is that 10.4 percent (7.6/0.73) of refinery open-ended lines in gas/vapor or light liquid service are leaking. This estimate may understate the number of open-ended lines that are leaking (and the resulting emission reduction estimates) because the NEIC inspectors did not monitor all open-ended lines in each of the inspected processes, and it is unlikely that none of the unmonitored open-ended lines were leaking.

For the synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry (SOCMI), inspectors in EPA's Region V have monitored open-ended lines at six chemical manufacturing facilities. They found between 6 and 27 percent of all open-ended lines were leaking at greater than 500 ppm. The average was 12.6 percent leaking. However, the leak concentrations for the monitored open-ended lines at SOCMI sources were unavailable. Therefore, we decided to estimate SOCMI emissions using the same leak concentrations and overall leak frequency as for refineries. Since the overall percent leaking for refineries (10.4 percent) is lower than for SOCMI sources (12.6 percent), this approach results in worst-case cost-effectiveness estimates for SOCMI sources. As described for the refinery analysis, to the best of our knowledge, these leaks occurred from open-ended lines in gas/vapor service or light liquid service. Based on information from the Additional Information Document (see EPA-450/3-82-010) we estimated that 12 percent of open-ended lines in SOCMI process units are in heavy liquid service. We then divided the percent of total open-ended lines at refineries ( i.e. , 7.6 percent) by 0.88 to estimate that 8.6 percent of the open-ended lines in gas/vapor service and light liquid service at SOCMI sources are leaking.

To estimate the current emissions from leaking open-ended lines, we used the NEIC instrument readings in correlation equations for connectors and flanges (see Tables 2-9 and 2-10 in EPA-453/R-95-017). The equations for connectors and flanges were used because we expect that the openings through which VOC would be emitted around an improperly installed cap or plug would be more similar to the openings for connectors and flanges than an uncapped open-ended line. This procedure provided average emission rates per open-ended line (including non-leakers) for both refineries and SOCMI facilities. To estimate baseline nationwide emissions, we multiplied these average emission rates by the estimated number of open-ended lines in gas/vapor or light liquid service that will become affected facilities in the 5 years after proposal of the amendments. The estimated number of refinery and SOCMI process units, open-ended lines, and emissions in the fifth year after proposal are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

The amount of emission reduction associated with monitoring will be a function of the monitoring frequency, how often the cap or plug on the open-ended line is opened, and the subsequent leak frequency for opened open-ended lines. In addition to the proposed annual monitoring frequency, the analysis also estimates impacts for semiannual, quarterly, and monthly monitoring. The opening frequency depends on the purpose of the open-ended line. Available data indicate that open-ended lines that are used for sampling represent about 20 percent of all open-ended lines at refineries. These open-ended lines are likely opened more frequently than open-ended lines that serve other functions. For this analysis, we assumed that these open-ended lines are opened once per month. Other open-ended lines that are used for purging, venting, and draining are likely opened much less frequently than open-ended lines that are part of sampling connection systems. Some may be opened only when the process unit is being shut down. For this analysis we assumed that the 80 percent of open-ended lines used for these purposes are evenly distributed among those that are opened quarterly, semiannually, and annually because data from refineries or SOCMI sources are unavailable. We also assumed the 20/80 split applies to SOCMI sources as well as refineries.

The subsequent leak frequency is due primarily to the care and technique of the operator installing the cap or other control equipment. Properly installed, there should be no leak. For this analysis, we assumed that operators would continue to install caps and other control equipment in the same manner that they currently use. This means that for any open-ended lines that are opened between monitoring events, we would expect the subsequent leak frequency to equal the baseline leak frequency, regardless of the amount of time since the previous monitoring event or the monitoring frequency. The impact of these assumptions on the percentage emission reductions for each of the different opening frequencies and monitoring intervals is described in the analysis. The estimated overall percent reductions and total mass reductions for each of the four monitoring scenarios in the fifth year after proposal of the amendments are shown in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble for petroleum refineries and SOCMI sources, respectively.

The cost impacts analysis includes estimated initial costs and annual costs. The initial costs include costs for identifying and integrating open-ended lines into the monitoring program, initial monitoring, and repair of initial leakers. Annual costs include capital recovery for initial costs, periodic monitoring costs, costs to repair leaking equipment, and additional time to prepare semiannual reports. Unit costs for initial setup and monitoring and annual monitoring were assumed to be the same as for other types of equipment. These costs were estimated only for open-ended lines in gas/vapor or light liquid service because, as noted above, essentially all of the leaking open-ended lines are likely in these services. Repair costs were estimated assuming all of the leaks can be repaired online in an average of 10 minutes by relatively simple techniques such as tightening the valve, replacing a worn plug, or reinstalling a cap properly. Labor rates and overhead factors were assumed to be the same as in the earlier analysis of impacts for the proposed changes in the leak definitions for pumps and valves. One hour was added to the time to prepare each semiannual report. We expect that the additional reporting burden will be minimal because only the total number of leaks and the number for which repair is delayed would have to be reported. The impacts analysis also includes a recovery credit for the material that is not emitted. As in the earlier impacts analysis, these credits are $600/megagrams (Mg) for emission reductions at petroleum refineries and $900/Mg for emission reductions at SOCMI facilities.

The estimated initial costs, total annual costs, and cost-effectiveness of each option are shown in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble for refinery and SOCMI process units, respectively. Note that the recovery credit for two of the four scenarios in the SOCMI analysis exceeds the total annual cost, but it does not in the refinery analysis. This difference in the results is due primarily to the difference in the correlation equations for the two industries. For a given screening value, the equation for SOCMI facilities estimates much higher emissions than the equation for refineries.

The EPA is soliciting comment on the new monitoring data and on all aspects of the procedures and assumptions used in the impacts analysis. We are specifically requesting data and comment on the following items:

• Additional monitoring data for open-ended lines, particularly any data that show open-ended lines in heavy liquid service that have been found to leak at greater than 500 ppm.

• Data on the percentage of open-ended lines in heavy liquid service.

• The appropriateness of using correlation equations for connectors and flanges to estimate emissions from improperly capped and plugged open-ended lines.

• Data on how often open-ended lines in different applications are opened.

• A description of the types of activities needed to repair leaking open-ended lines, and estimates of the time needed to perform such repairs.

Timely comments on these subjects will be taken into account in developing the final impacts analysis and in EPA's final action on the proposed amendments.

This action concern's EPA's withdrawal of Federal marine copper and cyanide chronic aquatic life water quality criteria applicable to Washington State from 40 CFR 131.36 (the National Toxics Rule) (57 FR 60848). For further information, including the rationale, regulatory text, and various statutes and executive orders that require findings for rulemakings, please see the information provided in the direct final rule titled, “Withdrawal of Federal Marine Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants Applicable to Washington” located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register Publication.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.

National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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.

Regulatory Classification. This proposed 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.

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

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.

National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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.

Regulatory Classification. This proposed 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.

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

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows: