On July 27, 2007, the Board relocates its Western Regional Office from 250 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, 4th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105-3401, to 201 Mission Street, Suite 2310, San Francisco, California 94105-1831. Appendix II of this part is amended to show the new address. The Western Regional Office telephone number changes to (415) 904-6772 and the facsimile number is changes to (415) 904-0580.

On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied for an FAA type certificate for its new Boeing Model 787-8 passenger airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with a two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 476,000 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 381 passengers.

Under provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 21.17, Boeing must show that Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes (hereafter referred to as “the 787”) meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117, except §§ 25.809(a) and 25.812, which will remain at Amendment 25-115. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under provisions of 14 CFR 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 787 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

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

The 787 will incorporate a number of novel or unusual design features. Because of rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions for the 787 contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

On January 15, 2002, the FAA issued 14 CFR 25.795(a) (Amendment 25-106), which specifies that the flightdeck door of a transport airplane be designed to resist forcible intrusion by unauthorized persons and penetration by small arms fire and fragmentation devices. At the time it was written, the regulation was limited to the flightdeck door to expedite a rapid retrofit of the existing airplanes required by operating rules to have a flightdeck door.

In addition to a reinforced flightdeck door, the 787 will have a flightdeck bulkhead which is reinforced to resist intrusion and ballistic penetration. The regulations do not adequately address the certification requirements for such a bulkhead, and appropriate certification standards are necessary. These special conditions require that the reinforced flightdeck bulkhead meet the same standards as those specified in § 25.795(a) for flightdeck doors. These special conditions contain the minimum standards that the Administrator considers necessary to ensure that safety standards are maintained after the aircraft enters into service.

On December 21, 2006, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes amending § 25.795(a) to require that a flightdeck bulkhead—and any other accessible barrier separating the flightcrew compartment from occupied areas—also be designed to resist intrusion or penetration. The methods of compliance described in the preamble of that notice and associated draft advisory material could be used to show compliance with these special conditions. For the 787, the reinforced bulkhead may be comprised of components such as the walls of adjacent lavatories, galleys, or crew rest areas. Those components are covered by these special conditions.

Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-07-08-SC for the 787 was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18412). One comment was received, from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA).

ALPA Comment: ALPA recommended that the requirements of these special conditions apply to future versions of the 787, including possible freighter configurations.

FAA Response: These special conditions apply to airplanes that incorporate a reinforced bulkhead. They are not limited to any particular type of operation, nor do they impose operational requirements. Thus, if a future freighter version did incorporate a reinforced bulkhead, these special conditions would apply. These special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the 787. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the 787. It is not a rule of general applicability.

We have received a report indicating that the fuel pump housing electrical connector, part number (P/N) 60-84355, failed on two McDonnell Douglas MD-11 airplanes. The airplanes had accumulated 3,000 and 3,600 flight hours since installation of the electrical connector in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A113. The failures were attributed to arcing between the contacts in the potted backside of the electrical connector. Subsequent x-ray inspections of the electrical connectors revealed soldering problems with the connector contacts. Continued arcing following a short circuit of the fuel pump housing electrical connector could damage the conduit that protects the power lead inside the fuel tank. This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Fuel pump housing electrical connector, P/N 60-84355, has also been installed on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A229. Therefore, all of these models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

On November 1, 2000, we issued AD 2000-22-21, amendment 39-11969 (65 FR 69658, November 20, 2000), for all McDonnell Douglas DC-10, MD-10, and MD-11 series airplanes. That AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to ensure that the flightcrew is advised of appropriate procedures for disabling certain fuel pump electrical circuits following failure of a fuel pump electrical connector. For certain airplanes, that AD also requires revising the AFM to prohibit resetting of tripped fuel pump circuit breakers. We approved installation of fuel pump housing electrical connector, P/N 60-84355, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A229 or MD11-28A113, as applicable, as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for AD 2000-22-21. That AMOC allowed removal of certain interim operating procedures from the Procedures section of the FAA-approved AFM, which is required by paragraph (a) of AD 2000-22-21. This AD reintroduces that requirement, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists on airplanes equipped with electrical connector P/N 60-84355.

On June 25, 2002, we issued AD 2002-13-10, amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, -10F, -15, -30, -30F, -30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), -40, and -40F airplanes; Model MD-10-10F and -30F airplanes; and Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes. That AD requires repetitive tests for electrical continuity and resistance and repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the fuel boost/transfer pump connectors; and corrective actions, if necessary. Accomplishing the optional replacement of all electrical connectors in accordance with paragraph (k) or (l) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of AD 2002-13-10.

On April 4, 2003, we issued AD 2003-07-14, amendment 39-13110 (68 FR 17544, April 10, 2003), for a certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 airplane. That AD requires repetitive tests for electrical continuity and resistance and repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the fuel boost/transfer pump connectors; and corrective actions, if necessary. Accomplishing the optional replacement of all electrical connectors in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2003-07-14.

We have reviewed the following service bulletins:

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A259, dated March 20, 2007, for Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes.

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A138, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2007, for Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletins DC10-28A259 and MD11-28A138 describe procedures for deactivating certain fuel tanks or fuel pumps, as applicable. The service bulletins also describe procedures for installing a placard on or adjacent to the flight engineer's fuel control panel or adjacent to display units 1 and 6, as applicable. The service bulletins also describe procedures for replacing fuel pump housing electrical connectors, P/N 60-84355, with new, improved electrical connectors, P/N 60-84355-1, and removing the placards after installing the new, improved electrical connectors.

We have also reviewed Boeing Flight Operations Bulletin DC-10-00-01A, MD-11-00-03A, and MD-10-00-02A, dated September 20, 2000, for Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, and Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes. Boeing Flight Operations Bulletin DC-10-00-01A, MD-11-00-03A, and MD-10-00-02A provides instructions for revising the Procedures section of the FAA-approved AFM by inserting certain Interim Operating Procedures (IOPs). The IOPs advise the flightcrew of proper procedures for disabling certain fuel pump electrical circuits following failure of a fuel pump housing electrical connector.

The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are issuing this AD to prevent continued arcing following a short circuit of the fuel pump housing electrical connector, which could damage the conduit that protects the power lead inside the fuel tank; this condition could create an ignition source inside the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. This AD requires an inspection to determine if fuel pump housing electrical connector, P/N 60-84355, is installed. If that electrical connector is installed, this AD requires the following additional actions:

• Revising the Procedures section of the FAA-approved AFM to advise the flightcrew of the appropriate procedures for disabling certain fuel pump electrical circuits following failure of a fuel pump housing electrical connector.

• Deactivating certain fuel tanks or fuel pumps, as applicable.

• Installing placards on or adjacent to the flight engineer's fuel control panel or adjacent to display units 1 and 6, as applicable.

This AD also allows the optional replacement of the fuel pump housing electrical connectors with new, improved parts, which would terminate the AFM revisions, deactivation of certain fuel tanks and fuel pumps, and placard installation.

The Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A259 is divided into work packages for airplanes identified as Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. This AD does not require any action for Group 5 airplanes. Also, this AD does not require accomplishing Work Package 2 for Groups 1, 2, and 3 airplanes and does not require accomplishing Work Package 5 for Group 4 airplanes; these work packages describe procedures for replacing the affected electrical connectors on tanks 1, 2, and 3.

The Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A138 is divided into work packages for airplanes identified as Groups 1 and 2. This AD does not require accomplishing Work Package 5 for Group 1 airplanes and does not require accomplishing Work Package 6 for Group 2 airplanes; these work packages describe procedures for replacing the affected electrical connectors on main tanks 1 and 3.

The compliance tables in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A138 recommend a compliance time of 10 days for accomplishing the following actions: (1) Work Package 1—Option 1—Part 1—Tank 2 (Placards Installation) for Group 1 airplanes, (2) Work Package 1—Option 1—Part 1—Forward Auxiliary Tank (Deactivation) for Group 2 airplanes, and (3) Work Package 2—Option 1—Part 1—Tank 2 (Placards Installation) for Group 2 airplanes. This AD, however, would require accomplishing those actions within 14 days after the effective date of this AD. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

The compliance table for Group 4 airplanes in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A259 identifies 5 work packages, one of which is “Work Package 3—Upper and Lower Center Wing Tanks.” However, the procedures for Work Package 3 are described under the headings, “Work Package 1—Option 1—Part 1—Upper and Lower Center Wing Fuel Tanks (Deactivation)” and “Work Package 1—Option 1—Part 2 or Option 2—Upper and Lower Center Wing Fuel Tank (Connector Replacement)” in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. In this AD, we have referenced the headings for Work Package 3 exactly as they appear in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.

We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring replacement of all affected electrical connectors, which will constitute terminating action for the AFM revisions, deactivation of certain fuel tanks and fuel pumps, and placard installation required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the replacement of all affected connectors would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the modification.

Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we have found that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that 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-2007-28749; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-079-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2007 (72 FR 7936). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

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

We have removed the Model A318-121 and A318-122 airplanes from the applicability because Models A318-121 and A318-122 have not yet been certificated by the FAA. When the Model A318-121 and A318-122 are certificated, the airworthiness limitations applicable to these models will include the limitations required by this AD in the FAA-approved type design for these models.

In paragraph (f) of the NPRM, we stated that all tasks identified in Section 1 of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005, “ * * * must be accomplished within the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1931/05. * * *” We have revised paragraph (f) of this AD to more clearly state that “* * * the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1931/05. * * *”

Airbus issued Operator Information Telex (OIT) SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006, to identify the applicable sections of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Maintenance Manual necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1931/05. We have added a note to paragraph (f) of this AD to refer to that OIT.

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

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

This AD affects about 720 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 2 work hours 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 $115,200, or $160 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 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.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53345). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Certification Maintenance Requirements and the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report sections of the Canadair Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM) to include changes and additions to checks of the aileron power control units (PCUs) and a change to the interval of the backlash check of the aileron control system.

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

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) requests that we provide additional information in the final rule indicating how the repeat interval for the aileron backlash check was selected and why the interval will prevent flight with aileron freeplay greater than the maximum limit. The NTSB notes that the Discussion section of the proposed AD does not explain how the 2,000-flight-hour interval was selected or why it would prevent flight with aileron freeplay greater than the maximum limit.

We agree to provide additional information. The repeat interval was selected after consideration of several factors related to known service experience, guidance from flutter analysis reference materials, and detailed flutter analysis. With respect to service experience, the absence of reports of buzzing or flutter events, known values of backlash freeplay, and the existing inspection interval were evaluated. Known backlash freeplay values were assessed against those recommended in flutter reference materials. A review of a recent flutter analysis conducted by Bombardier was also included in our consideration of an appropriate interval.

Also, Bombardier, with the agreement of the airworthiness authorities (Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and the FAA), has started monthly monitoring of the Model CRJ200 fleet since the inspection interval was lowered from 4,000 to 2,000 flight hours. After collecting sufficient data on the backlash freeplay that develops during the 2,000-flight-hour interval, further evaluation of the interval may be conducted.

Therefore, we consider the proposed interval to be appropriate at this time. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The NTSB also requests that the FAA revise the AD to include a method for operators to record, retain, and report aileron freeplay check data. The NTSB is concerned that the FAA, TCCA, and Bombardier might fail to monitor the effects of the reduced interval appropriately by not collecting and analyzing aileron freeplay check data.

We do not agree to revise the AD to add a requirement to collect and report data. While we have not mandated reporting of the aileron freeplay check measurements to the manufacturer, Task Card 000-27-900-015 specifies recording and retaining this measurement. Bombardier is soliciting the measurement results from operators during the bi-monthly Technical Steering Committee meetings. As of January 2007, Bombardier has received feedback on over 70 airplanes and is confident that sufficient data will be available at the end of the 2-year term to provide validation of the check interval. TCCA requires Bombardier to provide the data results within 2 years after issuing Temporary Revision 1-2-33 to the MRM. Bombardier will tabulate the results based on the current methods and provide a matrix along with a recommendation to TCCA in mid-2008. There is no need to mandate a method for collecting the data, as there is a process in place. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

The NTSB suggests that aileron freeplay data provided by the operators also be used to assist the FAA, TCCA, and Bombardier in monitoring the reclassification of the bearing backlash test portion of the aileron freeplay check. The NTSB states that the NPRM proposes to reclassify the bearing backlash test portion of the aileron freeplay check from a certification maintenance requirement (CMR) task to an MRB task. The aileron freeplay backlash check would be replaced with an aileron PCU internal leakage test and would remain a CMR task.

We agree that the aileron free play data could be useful. We will consider the NTSB's suggestion to use aileron freeplay data to monitor reclassification of the bearing backlash test once the service data are collected and we have reviewed the data. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

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

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

This AD affects about 742 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 the AD for U.S. operators is $59,360, or $80 per airplane.

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

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

We have determined that this 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 April 18, 2007, we issued AD 2007-06-52, amendment 39-15036 (72 FR 21083, April 30, 2007). That AD applies to certain Boeing Model 737-800 series airplanes. That AD requires inspecting flight spoilers to determine spoiler position after every landing and after any rejected takeoff maneuver. For airplanes on which any flight spoiler is found in the up position with the speedbrake handle in the down position, that AD requires replacement of the flight spoiler actuator with a flight spoiler actuator having a certain part number. That AD also requires an operational test of the speedbrake control system after any maintenance actions that operate the spoiler system, and replacement of the flight spoiler actuator(s) if necessary. That AD also provides for optional terminating action for those requirements. In addition, that AD requires you to report to the manufacturer any spoiler panel that is found in the up position with the speedbrake handle in the down position. That AD resulted from a report of seven flight spoiler actuator jams on Model 737-800 short field performance (SFP) airplanes. The actions specified in that AD are intended to detect and correct any spoiler panel that is found in the up position with the speedbrake handle in the down position, which could result in a spoiler actuator hardover, and could cause the spoiler surface to jam in the fully extended position. Two or more hardover failures of the spoiler surfaces in the up direction on the same wing, if undetected prior to takeoff, can cause significant roll and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

The goal of the actions required by AD 2007-06-52 is to detect actuators that might have failed during the previous flight in order to prevent an attempted takeoff with extended flight spoiler(s). We determined that takeoff is the most critical portion of the flight profile for this particular failure, but it is not the only flight profile that could be affected. Therefore, we are issuing this new AD for the following reasons:

• Replacing all flight spoiler actuators is the best method to eliminate the possibility of this failure.

• The inspections and operational tests required by AD 2007-06-52 are an interim solution and cannot detect or prevent other possible scenarios involving a failed flight spoiler actuator.

• Inspecting each flight spoiler after every landing and after any rejected takeoff maneuver does not guarantee that the flight spoiler will function properly during the next flight.

The preamble to AD 2007-06-52 explains that we consider the requirements “interim action” and are considering requiring the replacement of all eight flight spoiler actuators. We now have determined that replacement of the flight spoiler actuators is necessary, and this AD follows from that determination. The replacement actuators correct the interference condition in the valve assembly, eliminate possible rate jam conditions, and ensure continued correct operation of the flight spoilers. Replacement of all flight spoiler actuators constitutes terminating action for the requirements of AD 2007-06-52.

In addition, paragraph (g) of AD 2007-06-52 also specifies that the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) Item 27-7, “Auto Speed Brake System,” is no longer applicable to Model 737-800 series airplanes equipped with an SFP package. Since we issued AD 2007-06-52, Boeing has revised MMEL Item 27-7 to accurately reflect the operational requirements to account for the degraded performance when operating a Model 737-800 series airplane equipped with the SFP package when it has the auto speed brake system disabled. Therefore, the requirement in paragraph (g) of AD 2007-06-52 has not been restated in this AD. We have re-lettered the remaining paragraphs accordingly.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1283, dated April 3, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing an improved SFP actuator for each of the eight flight spoilers. The installation includes replacing the SFP actuator, making sure there is no hydraulic leakage at the connections to each of the new, improved SFP actuators, and completing all adjustments and tests of each flight spoiler to make sure it operates correctly. The service bulletin specifies doing the adjustments and tests in accordance with the applicable aircraft maintenance manual. The service bulletin also specifies returning each removed flight spoiler SFP actuator to the vendor for modification. The service bulletin includes eight individual work packages for replacement of each of the eight flight spoiler actuators to allow flexibility in accomplishing the service bulletin. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are issuing this AD to supersede AD 2007-06-52. This new AD retains certain requirements of the existing AD. This AD also requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the AD and the Service Bulletin.” This AD allows 120 days from its effective date to accomplish the required actions. This amount of time is necessary to enable operators to obtain sufficient parts to modify all affected airplanes.

Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1283, dated April 3, 2007, describe procedures for returning parts to the vendor, this AD does not require that action.

AD 2007-06-52 requires accomplishing certain actions in accordance with Boeing 737 Flight Crew Operations Manual Bulletin No. TBC-67, dated March 5, 2007. That document is specific to Boeing operations. Since we issued AD 2007-06-52, Boeing has released operator-specific versions of Bulletin No. TBC-67 for affected operators of Model 737-800 airplanes equipped with the SFP package. The operator-specific documents have been approved as AMOCs for AD 2007-06-52. For simplicity, paragraph (f)(1) of this new AD continues to require actions in accordance with Bulletin No. TBC-67. However, paragraph (l)(3) has been added to this AD to specify that the existing AMOCs that approve operator-specific documents continue to be acceptable.

We use the term “flight spoilers,” “flight spoiler actuators,” or “SFP actuators,” in this AD to refer to the affected spoilers and actuators. There are ground spoilers on the affected airplanes, but the ground spoilers have a different type of actuator and are not affected by this AD. We have added Note 1 to this AD to include this clarification.

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-2007-28750; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-124-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 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. 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.

On August 23, 2006, we issued AD 2006-18-09, amendment 39-14748 (71 FR 52418, September 6, 2006), for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes. That AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures; to incorporate new inspections to detect fatigue cracking of certain significant structural items (SSIs); and to revise life limits for certain equipment and various components. That AD resulted from manufacturer review of fatigue test results that identified additional and revised inspections of the fuselage that are necessary in order to ensure the continued structural integrity of the airplane. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. The actions specified in that AD correspond to British airworthiness directive G-2004-0020, dated August 25, 2004, and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) airworthiness directive 2006-0090, dated April 20, 2006.

Since we issued AD 2006-18-09, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes. The CAA advises that the certification requirements for damage tolerant and safe life structure are given in Chapter 5 of the BAE ATP aircraft maintenance manual (AMM). The CAA has identified the need to revise these requirements to add and change inspections of the fuselage. The revisions primarily recognize the introduction of Modification JDM60138N, which installs an energy-absorbing stop to aircraft fitted with the large freight door. Failure to adopt the latest revision of Chapter 5 of the AMM could result in fatigue cracking of certain structural elements remaining undetected, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued revisions to Section 05-10-12, “Mandatory Life Limitations (Airframe—Structures),” dated January 15, 2007; Section 05-10-15, “Mandatory Life Limitations (Powerplant/Engine/APU—Structures),” dated January 15, 2007; and Section 05-10-17, “Structurally Significant Items (SSIs),” dated January 15, 2007; of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited ATP AMM; which refer to additional chapters of the AMM. Those revised sections of the AMM include mandatory life limitations for the airframe and power plant/engine; and structural inspections of the fuselage, engine, horizontal stabilizer, and wing bottom surface. The revised sections also describe new inspections and compliance times for inspection and replacement actions. Accomplishment of those actions will prevent the onset of fatigue cracking of certain structural elements of the airplane.

Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The CAA mandated the service information and issued British airworthiness directive G-2005-0031, dated October 20, 2005 (which supersedes British airworthiness directive G-2004-0020, dated August 25, 2004), to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.

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

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

This AD supersedes AD 2006-18-09 and retains the requirements of the existing AD. This AD also requires revising the ALS of the ICA to include new and revised inspections.

None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

The following table provides the estimated costs to comply with this AD for any affected airplane that might be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less than 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register .

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-2007-28747; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-275-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket 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. 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.

Discussion

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 April 23, 2007 (72 FR 20072). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that:

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

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

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

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 53 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $117 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 $18,921 or $357 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) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

The Department of Commerce is issuing interim regulations implementing Section 406 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (“the Act”), which President Bush signed into law on December 20, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432). Section 406(b)(1) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue licenses to eligible manufacturers under headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, specifying the restrictions under each such license on the quantity of cotton woven fabrics that may be entered each year by or on behalf of the manufacturer.

The Act creates an annual tariff rate quota providing for temporary reductions through December 31, 2009 in the import duties of cotton woven fabrics suitable for making cotton shirts (new Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) headings 9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 9902.52.19). The reduction in duty is limited to 85 percent of the total square meter equivalents of all imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight of cotton used by manufacturers in cutting and sewing men's and boy's cotton shirts in the United States and purchased by such manufacturers during calendar year 2000.

The Act requires that the Secretary of Commerce must issue licenses and ensure that the tariff rate quotas are fairly allocated to eligible manufacturers under such headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19.

The Department, promptly upon promulgation of these interim regulations, intends to begin the process of soliciting applications for a license allocation of the 2007 tariff rate quota. Licenses will be issued to eligible manufacturers within 60 days after the manufacturer files an application with the Department. In subsequent years the Department intends to make its determination regarding allocation of the tariff rate quota no later than December 31 of the year preceding the tariff rate quota year

The tariff rate quota licenses will be issued to eligible manufacturers on the basis of the percentage of each manufacturer's quantity of imported woven fabrics described under HTS headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 during calendar year 2000, compared to the imports of such fabric by all manufacturers that qualify for a tariff rate quota allocation.

Pursuant to statutory requirements, allocation will be limited to persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who cut and sew men's and boys' cotton shirts in the United States and who, during calendar year 2000, were manufacturers cutting and sewing men's and boy's cotton shirts in the United States from imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight of cotton of the kind described in HTS headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 purchased by such manufacturers during calendar year 2000. Any manufacturer who becomes a successor-of-interest to a manufacturer of the cotton woven shirts described in HTS headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 during 2000 because of a reorganization or otherwise, shall be eligible to apply for a TRQ.

In order to receive a license, eligible manufactures must submit ITA Form ITA-4156P entitled “Affidavit for Application for TRQ License Cotton Shirting Fabric Tariff Rate Quota” containing the following information:

(1) Company name, address, contact telephone number, e-mail address, federal tax identification number, name of person submitting the application, and title, or capacity in which the person is acting for the applicant.

(2) The name and address of each plant and/or contractor location in the United States where men's and boy's cotton shirts of imported woven fabric of the kind described in HTS headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.52.19 was cut and sewn in calendar year 2000.

(3) The date of purchase shall be (a) the invoice date if the manufacturer is not the importer of record; and (b) the date of entry if the manufacturer is the importer of record.

(4) The quantity of imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight of cotton purchased during calendar year 2000 for use in the cutting and sewing of men's and boys' shirts in the United States.

At the conclusion of the application the applicant must attest that “all information contained in the application is complete and correct and no false claims, statements or representations have been made.” Applicants should be aware that, generally, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3729 persons providing false or fraudulent claims, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 101, persons making materially false statement to representations, are subject to civil or criminal penalties, respectively. All applications must be notarized by a licensed public notary.

Any business confidential information provided pursuant must be marked “business confidential.” Such information will be kept confidential and protected from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law.

The applicant must retain records substantiating the information provided in the application for a period of 3 years. Such records must be made available upon request by an appropriate government official.

The importer of record of fabric entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption under a license must be the Licensee or an importer authorized by the Licensee to act on its behalf. A Licensee may only authorize an importer to import fabric under the license on its behalf by making such authorization in writing or by electronic notice to the importer and providing a copy of such authorization to the Department. The authorization must include the unique number of the license, must specify the type of fabric imported by micron count, and must be in the possession of the importer at the time of filing the entry summary or warehouse withdrawal for consumption (Customs Form 7501) or its electronic equivalent. The authorization also must include the unique PIN assigned by the licensee to the importer. A copy of the authorization and PIN assigned to each importer must be provided to the Department by fax (202) 482-0667 or by mail to the Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. This authorization may only be withdrawn by notifying the importer, in writing or by electronic notice, with a copy provided to the Department. The licensee also must advise the Department of each authorized importer's Importer of Record Identification Number.

The licensee should inform its authorized importers that if they enter an amount less than the exact amount requested and authorized by the Import Approval, the importer must annotate the Import Approval form and send a copy to the Department and to the licensee. This annotation will be used to correct the record of use of the license. Failure to provide such information could disrupt the orderly use of the license. Imports in excess of amount of import approval are not authorized.

Executive Order 12866: This rule has been determined to be not significant under E.O. 12866.

Administrative Procedure Act: The Department of Commerce finds good cause, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The new HTS categories and allocation system must be implemented as soon as possible to allow TRQ recipients to import their products under the new HTS categories and allocation system.

If the new HTS category and allocation system are not implemented immediately, TRQ recipients will be required to file amended entries with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in order to get the duty benefit. The Act entered into force in December 20, 2006, created an annual tariff rate quota providing for temporary reductions through December 31, 2009 in the import duties of cotton woven fabrics suitable for making cotton shirts (new Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) headings 9902.52.08, 9902.52.09, 9902.52.10, 9902.52.11, 9902.52.12, 9902.52.13, 9902.52.14, 9902.52.15, 9902.52.16, 9902.52.17, 9902.52.18, and 9902.52.19). The reduction in duty is limited to 85 percent of the total square meter equivalents of all imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight cotton used by manufacturers in cutting and sewing men's and boy's cotton shirts in the United States and purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year 2000. The Act establishes that the TRQ is to be administered on a calendar year (January 1 to December 31) basis. While the Act does not specify a start date, Congress plainly intended the TRQ to be in effect in the first calendar year following the enactment, or January 1, 2007-December 31, 2007. During the calendar year of the date of application, an applicant must have cut and sewed men's and boys' cotton woven shirts in the United States. Furthermore, an applicant must have, during calendar year 2000, cut and sewed men's and boy's cotton shirts in the United States from imported woven fabrics of cotton containing 85 percent or more by weight of cotton of the kind described in HTS headings 9902.52.08 through 9902.5219 purchased by such manufacturer during calendar year 2000. The applicant may have cut or sewn these cotton shirts on its own behalf or had another person cut and sew the cotton shirts on the applicant's behalf, provided the applicant owned the fabric at the time it was cut and sewn.

Amended entries are costly and time consuming. To obtain the duty benefits under a TRQ from a license issued after cotton fabric has cleared CBP, a Licensee would need to request its brokers and other suppliers to file amended entries on its behalf with CBP in order to obtain the duty rebates applicable to the TRQ license. This process is time consuming and costly as additional staff would need to be hired and extra hours devoted to research and file amended entries. Brokers would need to research thousand of shipments, imported into several different ports, in order to file amended entries. Brokers and other suppliers do not always have the resources and personnel in order to investigate individual shipments for individual companies to file entries retroactively. The average cost charged by brokers and suppliers for researching shipments range from $100 to $200 to file amended entries, which would in effect nullify the duty benefit for small shipments which may make up the bulk of the entries for licensees.

For the same reasons above, there is good cause to find under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness. As stated above, the process of researching shipments to file amended entries is time consuming and costly. If this regulation is not implemented immediately, the costs incurred by TRQ recipients would in effect nullify any duty benefits, particularly for those TRQ recipients who have small shipments.

While these regulations will be effective upon publication, the Department of Commerce hereby solicits comments on these interim regulations and will amend them in final regulations if appropriate. The Department is particularly interested in comments concerning any impact these regulations might have on small-or-medium sized businesses.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This interim rule contains information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This information collection requirements have been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under an emergency request under Control Number 0625-0260. A request for permanent approval is pending. When the approval is provided, notice will be published in the Federal Register .

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The information collected will be used by the Department to allocate the tariff rate quota among manufacturers. Responses to the collection of information are required for a manufacturer to receive allocation of the tariff rate quota. Records substantiating information provided in an application must be retained. It is estimated that the annual burden for the collection will average one hour per application. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: ITA Desk Officer).

On July 2, 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a Final Rule in the Federal Register (72 FR 35920) changing the regulation of iodine under the Controlled Substances Act. As part of that rulemaking, several sections in Part 1310 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) were amended. However, DEA previously published several documents in the Federal Register adding similarly designated paragraphs. Thus, the final rule regarding the regulation of iodine published July 2, 2007 at 72 FR 35920 inadvertently removed those previous amendments. Therefore, this document corrects the amendments to the affected CFR sections to correctly designate paragraphs, thus reflecting all amendments to Part 1310 of Title 21 of the CFR.

The City of San Francisco requested a temporary change to the operation of the Third Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The Third Street Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 7 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal if at least one hour notice is given as required by 33 CFR 117.149. Navigation on the waterway is recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 7 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on July 29, 2007 to allow participants in the San Francisco Marathon to cross the bridge during the event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.

In the event of an emergency the draw can be opened with 30 minutes advance notice.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

In June 2006, the southernmost portion of the bascule spans for the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, at mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland was publicly placed into service, switching I-95 Northbound traffic onto the new Outer Loop portion of the bridge. The newly-constructed portion of the bridge will be required to open for vessels in accordance with the current drawbridge operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.255(a).

While the drawbridge is operational, coordinators for the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project indicated that the bascule span is not yet fully commissioned and cannot run at full speed, resulting in extended Interstate 95/495 traffic stoppages during openings. Opening the new bascule span for a vessel at this time would take approximately 45 minutes in a best case scenario. This has the potential to have a significant impact upon I-95 traffic, especially during the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. bridge-opening time frame currently available for commercial vessels, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a).

Coordinators requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation for the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge set out in 33 CFR 117.255(a).

Though good progress has been made regarding commissioning of the north and south drawbridges (both now carrying I-95 vehicle traffic), the coordinators are requesting an additional six months of the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. restriction of bridge operation to proceed with commissioning activities through January 25, 2008. From a river-user standpoint, the coordinators have received no requests from boaters or mariners to open during the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. timeframe since the restriction was issued in late June 2006. In fact, the coordinators have received no complaints on the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. restriction.

The coordinators requested that the new Outer Loop portion of the new drawbridge not be available for openings for vessels each day between the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. from Monday, July 23, 2007 through Friday, January 25, 2008, or until the bridge is properly commissioned, whichever comes first. The temporary deviation will only affect vessels with mast heights of 75 feet or greater. Management of the Federal and auxiliary channels will continue to be closely coordinated between the coordinators for the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, the Coast Guard and vessels requesting transit through the construction zone. Furthermore, all affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to receive an opening of the new drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a). Maintaining the new drawbridge in the closed-to-navigation position each day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 23, 2007 through January 25, 2008, will help reduce the impact to vehicular traffic during this phase of the new bridge construction.

The Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway of the closure period for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Regulatory Information

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Security zones around escorted vessels are necessary to ensure the safe transit of the escorted vessels as well as the public. Certain vessel movements are more vulnerable to terrorist acts and it would be contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM which would incorporate a notice and comment period that would delay the effective date of this regulation.

For the same reasons and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The terrorist attacks of September 2001 heightened the need for development of various security measures throughout the seaports of the United States, particularly around vessels and facilities whose presence or movement creates a heightened vulnerability to terrorist acts; or those for which the consequences of terrorist acts represent a threat to national security. The President of the United States has found that the security of the United States is and continues to be endangered following the attacks of September 11 (E.O. 13,273, 67 FR 56215, Sep. 3, 2002). Additionally, national security and intelligence officials continue to warn that future terrorist attacks are likely.

King's Bay, GA, and the Ports of Jacksonville, FL, and Canaveral, FL receive vessels that carry sensitive Department of Defense cargoes as well as foreign naval vessels that require additional safeguards. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville has determined that these vessels have a significant vulnerability to subversive activity by vessels or persons within the Jacksonville Captain of the Port Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20. This rule enables the COTP Jacksonville to provide effective port security, while minimizing the public's confusion and ease the administrative burden of implementing separate temporary security zones for each escorted vessel.

This rule prohibits persons and vessels from coming within 100 yards of all escorted vessels within the navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Zone Jacksonville, FL, as described in 33 CFR 3.35-20. No vessel or person may enter within a 100-yard radius of an escorted vessel unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Jacksonville, FL or his designated representative. Persons or vessels that receive permission to enter the security zone must proceed at a minimum safe speed and must comply with all orders issued by the COTP or his designated representative. Additionally, a vessel operating within 500 yards of an escorted vessel must proceed at a minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required to maintain speed by the navigation rules, and must comply with the orders of the COTP Jacksonville or his designated representative. It is expected that the duration of this rule will allow us to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking for a permanent solution to the problem this temporary final rule addresses.

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

While recognizing the potential impacts to the public, the Coast Guard believes the security zones are necessary for the reasons described above. However, we expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. There is generally enough room for vessels to navigate around these security zones. Where such room is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels as needed.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit King's Bay and the Ports of Jacksonville and Canaveral in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the zones are limited in size, leaving in most cases ample space for vessels to navigate around them. The zones will not significantly impact commercial and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via Local Notice to Mariners and marine broadcasts. Where such room is not available and security conditions permit, the Captain of the Port will attempt to provide flexibility for individual vessels to transit through the zones as needed.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Notice of these events was not provided to the Coast Guard with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and receive public comment before the event date. Furthermore, good cause exists because this temporary safety zone will not significantly restrict the use of the waterway as all vessels will be able to safely transit around the zone. A Coast Guard Patrol Commander will be available and the Coast Guard will also issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This temporary rule is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States.

Under 5 U.S.C. (d)(3), for the same reasons articulated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The Biscayne Bay Yacht Racing Association is sponsoring the BBYRA Full Moon Races, approximately 12 sailboats, 20 to 54 feet in the length, are expected to participate. The events will be held on the evenings of June 31, July 28, and August 25, 2007. The public is invited to attend. The high concentration of event participants, spectators, and the general boating public presents an extra hazard to the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States. A safety zone encompassing the waters in the Biscayne Bay & Intracoastal Waterway is necessary to protect participants as well as spectators from hazards associated with the event.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for the BBYRA Full Moon Races in Biscayne Bay in Miami, FL. The safety zone is 100 yards around all race participants as they transit the waters of Biscayne Bay south of the Rickenbaucker Causeway to Latitude 25°32′00″ . Vessels are prohibited from anchoring, mooring, or transiting within this zone, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Miami, Florida, or designated representative. A succession of not fewer than 5 short whistle or horn blasts from a Coast Guard patrol vessel will be the signal for any and all vessels within the safety zone to take immediate steps to avoid collision. Traffic may resume normal operations at the completion of the scheduled races and exhibitions as determined by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. This regulation will be enforced from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 30, July 28, and August 25, 2007.

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

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited for only limited time periods, and all vessels should be able to safely transit around the zone at all times. If the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines that it is safe for vessels to transit the zone, vessels may proceed through the zone between scheduled racing events. Traffic may resume normal operations at the completion of scheduled races and exhibitions as determined by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Finally, advance notifications to the maritime community through marine information broadcasts will allow mariners to adjust plans accordingly.

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

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the waters of the Biscayne Bay during the effective period. This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only 4.0 hours in the evening when vessel traffic is low, vessel traffic may safely pass around the zone, and vessels may pass through the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding this rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.

A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” and “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under addresses.

This action applies to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as defined in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act and in the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.23. The following table provides a list of standard industrial codes for operations covered under this revised rule.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility may be regulated under this rulemaking, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 122.23. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). Among its core provisions, the CWA established the NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. 33 U.S.C. 1342. EPA has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES program at 40 CFR parts 122-124. The Act also provided for the development of technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations that are imposed through NPDES permits to control the discharge of pollutants from point sources. CWA section 301(a) and (b).

EPA's regulation of wastewater and manure from CAFOs dates from the 1970s. EPA initially issued national effluent limitations guidelines and standards for feedlots on February 14, 1974, (39 FR 5704) and NPDES CAFO regulations on March 18, 1976 (41 FR 11458).

In February 2003, EPA revised these regulations. 68 FR 7176 (the “2003 CAFO rule”). The 2003 CAFO rule required owners or operators of all CAFOs  1 to seek coverage under an NPDES permit, unless they demonstrated no potential to discharge. CAFO industry organizations (American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Chicken Council, and National Turkey Federation (NTF), although NTF later withdrew its petition) and several environmental groups (Waterkeeper Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and American Littoral Society) filed petitions for judicial review of certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule. This case was brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 28, 2005, the court ruled on these petitions and upheld most provisions of the 2003 rule but vacated and/or remanded others. Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA , 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005) (hereinafter Waterkeeper ). Notably, the court vacated the requirement that all CAFOs apply for an NPDES permit unless a CAFO demonstrates no potential to discharge. The court also remanded the rule for failing to require incorporation of the terms of CAFOs' nutrient management plans (NMPs) into their permits and for failing to prescribe public review and comment and permitting authority approval of the terms of the NMPs. Other provisions were remanded for further clarification and analysis.

On June 30, 2006, EPA published a proposed rule to revise several aspects of the Agency's regulations governing discharges from CAFOs in response to the Waterkeeper decision. 71 FR 37744. EPA is briefly describing the proposed revisions to the 2003 CAFO here for context only. The proposed provisions in response to the Waterkeeper decision are beyond the scope of this final rule, and EPA is not addressing those provisions in this final rule.

In summary, EPA proposed to require only owners or operators of those CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge to seek authorization to discharge under a permit. Second, EPA proposed to require CAFOs seeking authorization to discharge under individual permits to submit their NMPs with their permit applications or, under general permits, with their notices of intent. Permitting authorities would be required to review the NMP and provide the public with an opportunity for meaningful public review and comment. Permitting authorities would also be required to incorporate terms of the NMP as NPDES permit conditions. The proposed rule also addressed the remand of issues for further clarification and analysis. These issues concern clarifications regarding the applicability of water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs); new source performance standards for swine, poultry, and veal CAFOs; and “best conventional technology” effluent limitations guidelines for fecal coliform. The June 2006 proposed rule reflected the dates for compliance as revised on February 10, 2006 (71 FR 6978), i.e. , July 31, 2007, for permit application by newly defined CAFOs and NMP development and implementation by all permitted CAFOs. The public comment period for the June 2006 CAFO proposed rule closed on August 29, 2006. EPA will respond to the comments received when it takes final action on the June 30, 2006, proposed rule. See docket EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037.

The 2003 CAFO rule amended the definition of “CAFO” to add facilities that had not previously been defined as CAFOs (in the 1976 regulations). 40 CFR 122.23(b). Operations newly defined as CAFOs in the 2003 CAFO rule included veal operations, swine weighing less than 55 pounds, chicken and layer operations using other than liquid manure handling systems, and animal feeding operations (AFOs) that were previously not defined as CAFOs because they discharged only in the event of a 25-year/24-hour storm. CAFOs in these categories that were in existence when the 2003 CAFO rule took effect (April 14, 2003) represent the group of CAFOs that were initially subject to a February 13, 2006, deadline to apply for an NPDES permit. 68 FR 7267. In addition, other existing facilities that became defined as CAFOs under the revised CAFO definitions in the 2003 CAFO rule include so-called “new dischargers” that, subsequent to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO rule, have become CAFOs due to changes in their operations, where such changes would not have made the operation a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003. This second group of facilities was initially required to seek permit coverage by April 13, 2006, or 90 days after becoming defined as a CAFO, whichever date is later. 68 FR 7268. Thus, each of these groups of CAFOs were allowed three years from the 2003 rule to seek authorization to discharge under an NPDES permit when EPA issued the 2003 CAFO rule.

EPA reasoned in the 2003 CAFO rule, and reiterated in the February 2006 date change rule, that allowing newly regulated entities three years to come into compliance was consistent with Congressional intent, as expressed in the Clean Water Act with respect to newly established point sources. Moreover, the Agency stated that the three-year timeframe was necessary for States authorized to administer the NPDES permit program to provide permit coverage for CAFOs that were not previously required to be permitted and to revise State regulatory programs. 68 FR 7204.

In addition to the requirements to seek permit coverage, the 2003 CAFO rule also required all permitted CAFOs to develop and implement NMPs by December 31, 2006. EPA believed that this date was reasonable given that CAFOs would have had a little over three and a half years from the issuance of the 2003 rule to develop and implement an NMP. This time frame allowed States to update their NPDES programs and issue permits to reflect the NMP requirements of the 2003 CAFO rule. It also provided flexibility for permitting authorities to establish permit schedules based on specific circumstances, such as prioritization of nutrient management plan development and implementation based on site-specific water quality risks and the available infrastructure for development of NMPs.

The timing of these compliance deadlines was affected by EPA's need to revise the CAFO rule as a result of the Second Circuit's decision in the Waterkeeper case. On February 10, 2006, prior to the Agency's June 2006 proposed rule responding to the Waterkeeper decision, EPA promulgated a rule to revise each of the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule that were affected by the decision (hereinafter “2006 date rule”). 71 FR 6978. Specifically, EPA extended the dates for those newly defined CAFOs described above to seek NPDES permit coverage and the date by which all CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs. EPA revised these dates in order to: (1) Provide the Agency sufficient time to take final action on the regulatory revisions with respect to the Waterkeeper decision; and (2) require NMPs to be submitted at the time of the permit application, consistent with the court's decision. It was necessary for EPA to revise the dates separately from addressing the rest of the issues raised by the Waterkeeper decision because EPA had not completed the final rule responding to the Waterkeeper decision prior to the dates by which newly defined CAFOs were required to seek permit coverage under the 2003 rule.

On May 10, 2007, EPA proposed to further extend only the date by which certain operations must seek authorization to discharge under an NPDES permit and the date by which all permitted CAFOs must develop and implement their NMPs. 2 EPA proposed to revise these compliance dates because EPA would not complete a final rule revising the 2003 CAFO rule before the July 31, 2007, deadlines. The public comment period closed on June 11, 2007. EPA received a total of 17 comments on the May 10, 2007, proposed rule.

This final rule extends certain dates for compliance specified in the 2003 CAFO rule and amended by the 2006 date rule. Because EPA will not have completed the rulemaking responding to the Waterkeeper decision prior to the dates by which newly defined CAFOs must seek permit coverage, the Agency is revising these dates to a time that is subsequent to the forthcoming CAFO rule revision.

This rule amends the section detailing when operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, and operations that become CAFOs after that date due to operational changes that would not have made then a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources must seek NPDES permit coverage. Second, EPA is amending the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs. This final rule does not modify or otherwise affect any other existing regulatory provisions, nor does it promulgate any regulatory provisions associated with the proposed rule in response to the Waterkeeper decision, published on June 30, 2006. 71 FR 37744.

EPA is extending the date by which operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. This deadline, found at 40 CFR 122.23(g)(2), applies to “dry” chicken operations, stand-alone immature swine, heifer and calf operations, and those animal feeding operations (AFOs) that were entitled to the permitting exemption for discharging only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm. EPA is also amending the date by which operations that became defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, or that will become CAFOs due to operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. An example of an operation affected by this deadline, which is found at 40 CFR 122.23(g)(3)(iii), is an AFO that increases the number of animals in confinement to a level that would result in the operation becoming defined as a CAFO.

This final rule does not affect the applicable time for seeking permit coverage for newly constructed CAFOs not subject to new source performance standards (NSPS) or for new source CAFOs subject to NSPS that discharge or propose to discharge, even those in categories that were added to the definition of a CAFO in the 2003 CAFO rule. Those CAFOs are required by 40 CFR 122.21(a) and 123.23(g)(3)(i) and (g)(4) to seek NPDES permit coverage at least 180 days prior to the time that they commence operating.

This final rule does not supersede State requirements. States may choose to require CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits in advance of the dates set in the federal NPDES regulations. Further, CAFOs that are already permitted, e.g. , CAFOs that existed prior to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO rule and have been required to seek NPDES permit coverage even before EPA issued the 2003 CAFO rule, continue to be required to maintain permit coverage pursuant to § 122.23(h).

EPA is also correcting a typographical error that was created in the 2006 date rule. In that rule, 40 CFR 122.23(g)(1) as promulgated in the 2003 CAFO rule (which provides that existing operations defined as CAFOs prior to April 14, 2003, must seek permit coverage by the effective date of the 2003 rule) was inadvertently replaced with 40 CFR 122.23(g)(2) (which provides extended compliance dates for operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, which were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date). Because the “(2)” was erroneously printed as “(1)”, § 122.23(g)(1) was overwritten and § 122.23(g)(2) was incorrectly left unchanged. As a result, the rule following the February 2006 date extension contained two provisions applicable to “Operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, who were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date” with conflicting dates. EPA is restoring the original § 122.23(g)(1), as promulgated in 2003, and revising the date in § 122.23(g)(2) to reflect the date extension finalized by this rule.

EPA is extending the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs, from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009. This action revises all references to the date by which CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs currently in 40 CFR parts 122 and 412. Thus, this rule revises the deadlines found in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x), 122.42(e)(1), 412.31(b)(3), and 412.43(b)(2).

This final rule does not supersede State requirements, nor does it affect CAFOs operating under existing permits, so long as those permits remain in effect. If their existing permits require development and implementation of an NMP, currently permitted CAFOs must develop and implement their NMPs in accordance with the terms of their current permit, or their applicable State requirements. This rule also does not affect the existing applicable land application limitations and requirements for all CAFOs subject to the new source performance standards under 40 CFR 412.35 and 40 CFR 412.46. Upon permit coverage, new sources must meet all relevant land application requirements.

The amount of time needed to revise the rule in response to the Waterkeeper decision has been greater than EPA anticipated at the time it promulgated the 2006 date rule. At the time of the 2006 date rule, EPA believed that July 31, 2007, would allow sufficient time for the Agency to complete the rulemaking to address the Waterkeeper decision. EPA also anticipated that the dates established in the 2006 date rule provided sufficient time to ensure compliance with the NPDES regulations within a reasonable timeframe consistent with the dates established in the 2003 CAFO rule. 71 FR 6980-81. However, at that time EPA had not yet proposed revisions to the CAFO rule and could only surmise what the public response to the proposal would be. In light of comments received and after further consideration of the proposed rule, EPA is continuing to explore the best method of implementing the Waterkeeper decision. To avoid any potential conflict with existing deadlines that precede the publication of the final rule, it is appropriate to revise the CAFO compliance dates effected by this final rule.

Some commenters on the proposed rule raised concerns about the proposed further delay and expressed interest in having the regulatory requirements implemented in a timely fashion. In EPA's view, the deadlines established by this rule are appropriate. Newly defined facilities that are required to apply for an NPDES permit will need sufficient time to develop their permit applications or notices of intent for general permit authorization once EPA has finalized the revised rules in response to the Waterkeeper decision. The revised deadlines are also appropriate because permitting authorities will need time following promulgation of the CAFO regulatory revisions to identify the necessary procedures for reviewing NMPs and incorporating them into general permits. Taking into account the time EPA needs to complete the rule in response to Waterkeeper and the comments submitted on that proposed rule, as well as the period of time after the final rule is promulgated to allow States, the regulated community, and other stakeholders the opportunity to adjust to the new regulatory requirements, EPA believes that extending the dates to February 27, 2009, is reasonable.

Several commenters indicated that as a result of the Second Circuit's decision vacating the duty to apply provision for CAFOs established in the 2003 rule, the deadlines for CAFOs to seek coverage, also initially established in that rule, are now unnecessary. These commenters suggested that EPA should eliminate the deadlines for CAFOs to seek coverage in 40 CFR 122.23(g)(2)-(3), such that only CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge would be required to seek coverage in accordance with the timing requirements for all NPDES sources in 40 CFR 122.21(c). Several other commenters sought clarity of the duty to apply provision following the Waterkeeper decision. These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA reiterates that it will address the various aspects of the court's Waterkeeper decision, including the ruling on the “duty to apply” issue, in the final rule in response to Waterkeeper.

There were a few commenters who requested that EPA provide greater clarity regarding the applicability of the deadline extensions to various classifications of CAFOs. As described above, the February 27, 2009, permit application deadlines revised in this rule do not apply to CAFOs that were defined as CAFOs prior to the 2003 rule, nor do the deadlines affect new sources subject to new source performance standards. The deadlines revised by this rule for developing and implementing NMPs apply to all permitted CAFOs, except that new sources subject to new source performance standards must develop and implement an NMP upon permit coverage.

Several commenters expressed the view that EPA needed to take into consideration the time necessary for States to make conforming revisions to State programs following EPA's regulatory revisions and, accordingly, extend the deadlines to a date two to three years after EPA intends to publish the final rule in response to Waterkeeper. While EPA agrees that some States may need additional time to modify their programs once EPA has finalized its regulatory revisions in response to the Waterkeeper decision, the Agency does not agree that these concerns justify further extension of the compliance dates in this rule. EPA is committed to collaborating with States and other interested parties to work through the procedural challenges and resolve any difficulties that may arise in the implementation of the regulatory revisions. In addition, EPA notes that most of the technical provisions of the 2003 CAFO rule ( e.g. , the substantive NMP requirements) were unaffected by the Waterkeeper decision, and therefore CAFOs already have the information they need to develop NMPs, and do not need to wait for further EPA action before doing so.

Several commenters were opposed to the proposed extension of the compliance dates and expressed concern that such an extension would reward discharging CAFOs that have not yet complied with permitting requirements and that by proposing the extension, EPA is exhibiting a lack of urgency to ensure that discharging CAFOs obtain NPDES permit coverage. In response, EPA notes that the deadline extension applies only to a specific subset of CAFOs, and moreover, nothing in today's rule precludes a CAFO from applying for a permit or seeking authorization to discharge under a general permit (if available) before the February 27, 2009 date. As stated above, this final rule affects only certain compliance dates associated with the timing of EPA's final rule revisions in response to the Waterkeeper decision. EPA is working to promulgate those revisions as expeditiously as possible, while giving due attention to the comments received on the June 2006 proposal. EPA is committed to finalizing the rulemaking process and to working with States and agricultural partners to ensure timely development of permit applications and NMPs where necessary. Moreover, many States are actively implementing the CAFO program and issuing permits, and the provisions of this final rule do not supersede existing State requirements.

One comment expressed the view that EPA had made an incorrect statement in the preamble to the May 10, 2007, proposed rule regarding the ability of authorized States to require CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage in advance of the dates set in the federal regulations. EPA disagrees. The federal regulations establish the outermost limit by which certain CAFOs subject to permitting requirements must seek permit coverage, leaving open all dates preceding the deadline of February 27, 2009. If, for example, a State with an approved program were to continue to require newly defined CAFOs to seek permit coverage by July 31, 2007, such a requirement would be consistent with the federal requirement for newly defined CAFOs to seek permit coverage no later than February 27, 2009.

EPA is making this rule immediately effective upon the date of publication. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” and section 553(d)(3) which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.”

EPA finds that there is good cause to make the rule effective immediately. The compliance deadlines being revised by this final rule require some CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage and prepare and implement nutrient management plans by July 31, 2007, before EPA regulations will be in place to respond to the Waterkeeper decision. Making this rule immediately effective is consistent with the purpose of the good cause exemption which is to provide reasonable time for affected parties to comply. A delayed effective date is not necessary because affected parties do not have to take any action to comply with this rule which simply extends deadlines for seeking NPDES permit coverage and developing and implementing nutrient management plans. In addition, consistent with section 553(d)(3), an immediate effective date is justified because this rule relieves certain CAFOs of obligations which would otherwise apply to them, to seek NPDES permit coverage and develop and implement nutrient management plans by July 31, 2007.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. As discussed above, the purpose of this rule is solely to address timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper court ruling on petitions for review challenging portions of the 2003 CAFO rule. After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), I certify that this action will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities since the effect of the final rule is solely to extend certain deadlines related to NPDES CAFO permitting. Additionally, this rule does not affect small governments, as the permitting authorities are State or Federal agencies.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, this final rule is not subject to sections 202, 203, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This final rule does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, nor will it preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health and safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)), which establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This final rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This final rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. section 3501 et seq. ). However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR parts 9, 122, 123, and 412 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0250. The EPA ICR number for the original set of regulations is 1989.02.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and will be effective on July 24, 2007.

The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984) (the 1984 Act) provides authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators. (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)) Section 211 of the 1984 Act also grants the Secretary broad power, in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations, to “prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements” and to “perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate.” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a) (8) and (10))

The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.73(g) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to commercial motor vehicle programs and safety regulation.

This document provides regulatory guidance to the public with respect to the definition of “accident” in § 390.5 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), and the recording of accidents as required under § 390.15 of the FMCSRs.

Members of the motor carrier industry and other interested parties may also access the guidance in this document through the FMCSA's Internet site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

Specific questions addressing any of the interpretive material published in this document should be directed to the contact person listed earlier under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , or the FMCSA Division Office in each State.

The regulatory guidance in this notice responds to questions concerning the definition of “accident” in 49 CFR 390.5: Are all fires on CMVs considered reportable accidents?

Section 390.5 defines “accident” as an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in a fatality; bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or one or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicles to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle. It excludes occurrences involving only boarding and alighting from a stationary motor vehicle or involving only the loading or unloading of cargo.

Fires were included in the original 1962 definition of “recordable accident,” but were not explicitly mentioned in later versions of the FMCSRs. The Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) final rule of August 25, 1962 (27 FR 8551) defined “recordable accident,” (for purposes of filing a form MCS-50T for accidents involving property-carrying vehicles or MCS-50B for accidents involving passenger-carrying vehicles) as

The term included, but was not limited to, eight types of accidents. Item 4 was “fire or explosion in or on a motor vehicle.”

A final rule of September 7, 1972 (37 FR 18079) eliminated the list of examples of types of accidents and focused on three different outcomes that would provide the criteria for reporting an accident. The Agency revised the injury criteria to cover only injuries requiring medical attention other than first aid at the accident scene, and increased the threshold for property damage reporting to $2,000. The Agency explained “ Accidents which formerly fell into those special categories, such as those involving overturn of a vehicle, fire, or explosion, will continue to be reported if they result in death, personal injury, or property damage of $2,000 or more. ” [emphasis added] The property damage threshold was later raised to $4,400 before being replaced with a “disabling damage” criterion in a final rule published on February 2, 1993 (58 FR 6726). That final rule also revised the injury criteria to cover bodily injury to a person who, as result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident.

It has been the position of FMCSA and its predecessor agencies that the definition of “accident” applies to both collision and non-collision incidents involving commercial motor vehicles. If a fire or explosion results in a fatality, an injury, or disabling damage to a motor vehicle, it must be considered a recordable accident based on the current regulatory definition under 49 CFR 390.5. Therefore, this notice should not be construed to be a revision of the criteria for recording CMV accidents. Rather, its purpose is to emphasize the importance of recording CMV accidents as defined under Section 390.5 that do not necessarily involve collisions.

FMCSA acknowledges the potential impact on motor carriers' Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) scores that could result from States uploading reports about fires into the Agency's Motor Carrier Management Information System. However, in the interest of safety, we believe that we need to gather data on the prevalence of fires, and that motor carriers must be responsible for documenting these events and taking action to prevent injuries and fatalities associated with CMV fires. The inclusion of fires in the Accident Safety Evaluation Area (SEA) of SafeStat would, at its worst, only increase the likelihood of an on-site review of the carrier's safety management practices, depending on the number of these events.

Table of Contents I. Background II. Comments on the NPRM and Agency Responses Thereto a. Objectivity of the Test Procedure 1. Variability in Sensor Outcomes 2. Distance Measurement 3. Passive Occupant Detection System B b. Adjustments to Test Procedure 1. Tightening (cinching) the Lower Anchor Straps 2. Order of Steps 3. Seat in Full Rearmost Position—Rigid LATCH 4. Load Angle tolerance—Rigid LATCH 5. Reduction of Load—Rigid LATCH 6. 600 N Force—Correction c. Suggestions Not Taken By NHTSA 1. Base 2. Foot Prop 3. Seat Back Contact III. Compliance Date IV. Denial of Petition for Rulemaking V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Background

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection” (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and frontal air bags for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule to require that air bags be designed to provide improved frontal crash protection for all occupants, by means that include advanced air bag technology (“Advanced Air Bag Rule,” 65 FR 30680, Docket No. NHTSA 00-7013). Under the Advanced Air Bag Rule, manufacturers are provided several compliance options in order to minimize the risk to infants and small children from deploying air bags, including options to suppress an air bag in the presence of a child restraint system (CRS) or to provide an LRD system.

Manufacturers choosing to rely on an air bag suppression system or LRD system to minimize the risk to children in a CRS must ensure that the vehicle complies with the suppression or LRD requirements when tested with the CRSs specified in Appendix A of the standard (see S19, S21 and S23 of FMVSS No. 208). On November 19, 2003, NHTSA revised Appendix A by adding two CRSs that are equipped with components that attach to a vehicle's LATCH  2 system (68 FR 65179, Docket No. NHTSA 03-16476). Vehicles that have a LATCH system in a front designated seating position and are certified as meeting the suppression or LRD requirements must meet the requirements when tested with the CRSs installed on the LATCH system. 3

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—

(1) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; or

(2) Visiting TSA's Security Regulations Web page at http://www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for “Research Center” at the top of the page.

In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

TSA is responsible for security in all modes of transportation, including aviation. See 49 U.S.C. 114(d). TSA restricts what passengers may carry into the sterile areas of airports and into the cabins of air carrier aircraft. Under TSA's regulation for acceptance and screening of individuals and accessible property, 49 CFR 1540.111, an individual (other than a law enforcement or other authorized individual) may not have a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property—

• When performance has begun of the inspection of the individual's person or accessible property before entering a sterile area, or before boarding an aircraft for which screening is conducted under § 1544.201 or § 1546.201;

• When the individual is entering or in a sterile area; or

• When the individual is attempting to board or onboard an aircraft for which screening is conducted under § 1544.201 or § 1546.201.

On March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9877), TSA announced, via a notice in the Federal Register , a prohibition on passengers' ability to bring lighters onboard the cabin of an aircraft consistent with sec. 4025 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) (Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3710, Dec. 13, 2004), which required TSA to add butane lighters to the prohibited items list and to make any other modifications that TSA deemed appropriate. Specifically, TSA prohibited passengers from carrying any type of lighter on their person or in accessible property in airport sterile areas or on board an aircraft for which screening is conducted.

Through this notice, TSA is changing its enforcement policy with respect to lighters. Under the new policy, TSA will no longer enforce the prohibition on lighters. The effect of this change in policy is to allow passengers to carry a lighter through a passenger screening checkpoint and into the cabin of an aircraft. Micro-torches and gas torches will continue to be prohibited.

In sec. 530 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (Pub. L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, Oct. 4, 2006), Congress provided TSA with the authority to refrain from enforcing the statutory butane lighter ban, if the Assistant Secretary determines that butane lighters are not a significant threat to civil aviation security. If the Assistant Secretary determines that butane lighters are not a significant threat, the Assistant Secretary must notify the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives 15 days in advance of the determination and include a report on whether the effectiveness of screening operations is enhanced by suspending enforcement of the prohibition.

In accordance with this authority granted by Congress, TSA has determined, based on intelligence-driven threat assessments, that the carriage of butane and other types of lighters by passengers on board commercial aircraft does not pose a significant threat to civil aviation security. TSA has further determined that aviation security is better served if TSOs focus their efforts on detecting improvised explosive devices, firearms, and other deadly devices rather than searching for butane and other types of lighters. The search for lighters at screening checkpoints is a time consuming process that ultimately distracts TSOs from efforts to detect the type of deadly weapons likely to be used by terrorists and which could be used to inflict catastrophic damage to an aircraft and loss of lives.

Since TSA prohibited lighters on March 1, 2005, TSA continues to intercept more than 22,000 lighters each day at screening checkpoints across the country. Lighters represent approximately 85 percent of prohibited items discovered by TSA and abandoned by passengers at screening checkpoints. The number of lighters discovered at checkpoints and the time and effort dedicated to positively identifying them is clearly disproportionate to any threat they may pose.

Results from field surveys indicate that the greater the numbers of items TSOs are required to identify and evaluate, the more difficult it is to detect any one item. Accordingly, TSA has determined that aviation security is better served if TSOs are focused on detecting improvised explosive devices, firearms, and other deadly devices instead of employing resources in the search for lesser threats, such as lighters. Shifting attention from lower security risks to address markedly higher security risks is fundamental to a risk-based approach. TSA believes the effectiveness of screening operations will be enhanced if the time and resources devoted to detecting, collecting, and disposing of lighters is shifted to the search for higher threat items. Freeing TSOs from searching for lighters will not only enable them to focus on finding explosives, it will also enhance their ability to use behavior recognition, conduct random screening procedures, and deploy other measures that increase complexity in the security system and make its security protocols less transparent and predictable to potential terrorists.

It is noteworthy that the United States is currently the only country that bans lighters. Permitting passengers to carry lighters will align the United States with the international security standards on lighters. This will serve as another step in our efforts to harmonize security measures with international partners. Further, this change will better harmonize TSA's regulations with current Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations regarding the carriage of hazardous materials on board aircraft. Under the DOT regulations (49 CFR 175.10), a passenger may carry one lighter for the individual's use on his or her person or in carry-on baggage.

NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register on November 3, 2003 (68 FR 62250), implementing a process, for years in which the full Winter I commercial scup quota is not harvested, to allow unused quota from the Winter I period (January 1 through April 30) to be added to the quota for the Winter II period (November 1 through December 31), and to allow adjustment of the commercial possession limits for the Winter II period commensurate with the amount of quota rolled over from the Winter I period. Table 4 of the final 2007 quota specifications for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass (71 FR 75134, December 14, 2006) presented detailed information regarding Winter II possession limits, based on the amount of scup to be rolled over from Winter I to Winter II.

For 2007, the Winter II quota is 1,417,991 lb (643,201 kg), and the best available landings information indicates that 644,155 lb (292,184 kg) remain of the Winter I quota of 4,012,895 lb (1,820,249 kg). Consistent with the intent of Framework 3, the full amount of unused 2007 Winter I quota is transferred to Winter II, resulting in a revised 2007 Winter II quota of 2,062,146 lb (935,374 kg). In addition to the quota transfer, the 2007 Winter II possession limit is increased, consistent with the rollover specifications established in the 2007 final rule, to 3,500 lb (1,588 kg) per trip to provide an appropriate opportunity for fishing vessels to obtain the increased Winter II quota.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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.

The 2007 TAC of pelagic shelf rockfish in the West Yakutat District of the GOA is 307 metric tons (mt) as established by the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (72 FR 9676, March 5, 2007).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2007 TAC of pelagic shelf rockfish in the West Yakutat District of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 297 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pelagic shelf rockfish in the West Yakutat District of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

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) 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 closure of pelagic shelf rockfish in the West Yakutat District 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 July 18, 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.

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