FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq. ), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq. ). These statutes provide that FSIS is to protect the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended (5 U.S.C. 601-612), requires that Federal agencies conduct a review of their rules that have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Agencies are required to conduct the review by the end of 10 years after the implementation of such a rule.

The purpose of the review is to determine whether the rule should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.

On January 28, 2005, FSIS published a schedule of its planned reviews in the Federal Register (70 FR 4047)—Regulatory Flexibility Act; Amended Plan for Reviewing Regulations Under Section 610 Requirements. According to the schedule, the Agency would first review the Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) Systems final rule (61 FR 38806).

FSIS assembled a team that conducted a review of the regulations implemented by the PR/HACCP rule. The team examined the five factors enumerated by Section 610 of the RFA: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the rule; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with State and local government rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. The team also looked at the economic impact of the rule on the meat and poultry industries.

As part of its effort to satisfy the requirements of Section 610 of the RFA, FSIS published on August 12, 2005, a notice in the Federal Register (70 FR 47147) requesting comments from the public on the impact of the PR/HACCP rule and on the relevant factors enumerated by Section 610 of the RFA. The Agency received 19 comments from the public concerning the PR/HACCP rule. The Agency also conducted a survey of nine small and very small meat and poultry establishments in order to ensure that it received comments on the PR/HACCP rule from small and very small businesses affected by the rule.

FSIS summarized the comments it received and gives its response to these comments in the review report. In response to the comments and the review that the team conducted, the report recommends that the Agency take several steps to enhance and strengthen its outreach to small and very small businesses regarding HACCP and pathogen reduction efforts. Based on its analysis of the comments, FSIS determined that it was not necessary to make any changes to the PR/HACCP rule.

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

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

In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account.

The Commission is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to 11 CFR parts 100, 104 and 114 that would implement the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. , 127 S. Ct. 2652 (June 25, 2007), available at http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/wrtl_sct_decision.pdf .

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”)  1 amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended  2 (the “Act” or “FECA”), by adding a new category of political communications, “electioneering communications,” to those already governed by the Act. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3). Electioneering communications are broadcast, cable or satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, are publicly distributed within sixty days before a general election or thirty days before a primary election, and are targeted to the relevant electorate. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(A)(i). Those who make electioneering communications are subject to certain reporting obligations. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(1) and (2). Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from using general treasury funds to finance electioneering communications, directly or indirectly. 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2).

The Act exempts certain communications from the definition of “electioneering communication” found in 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(i) to (iii), and specifically authorizes the Commission to promulgate regulations exempting other communications as long as the exempted communications do not promote, support, attack or oppose (“PASO”) a candidate. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(iv), citing 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(iii).

The Commission promulgated regulations to implement BCRA's electioneering communications provisions. Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Regulations on Electioneering Communications , 67 FR 65190 (Oct. 23, 2002) (“ EC E&J ”). 3 See also 11 CFR 100.29 (defining “electioneering communication”); 104.20 (implementing electioneering communications reporting requirements); 110.11(a) (requiring disclaimers in all electioneering communications); 114.2 (prohibiting corporations and labor organizations from making electioneering communications); 114.10 (allowing qualified non-profit corporations (“QNCs”) to make electioneering communications); 114.14 (restricting indirect corporate and labor organization funding of electioneering communications). Commission regulations exempt five types of communications from the definition of “electioneering communication.” See 11 CFR 100.29(c). 4

In McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) ( “McConnell” ), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld BCRA's electioneering communication provisions against various constitutional challenges. Id. at 194, 201-02, 207-08. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on the use of general treasury funds by corporations and labor organizations to pay for electioneering communications in 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2) was not facially overbroad. Id. at 204-06. In Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 (2006) ( “WRTL I” ), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that McConnell's upholding of section 441b(b)(2) against a facial constitutional challenge did not preclude further as-applied challenges to the corporate and labor organization funding prohibitions. See WRTL I, 546 U.S. at 411-12. Subsequently, in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007) ( “WRTL II” ), the Supreme Court reviewed an as-applied challenge brought by a non-profit corporation seeking to use its own general treasury funds, which included donations it had received from other corporations, to pay for broadcast advertisements referring to Senator Feingold and Senator Kohl during the electioneering communications period before the 2004 general election, in which Senator Feingold, but not Senator Kohl, was on the ballot. The plaintiff argued that these communications were genuine issue ads run as part of a grassroots lobbying campaign on the issue of Senate filibusters on judicial nominations. WRTL II, 127 S. Ct. at 2660-61. The Supreme Court held that section 441b(b)(2) was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff's advertisements because the advertisements were not the “functional equivalent of express advocacy.” Id. at 2670, 2673. A communication is the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” only if it “is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” Id. at 2667.

The Commission is initiating this rulemaking to implement the Supreme Court's decision in WRTL II. The Commission seeks public comment generally regarding the effect of the WRTL II decision on the Commission's rules governing corporate and labor organization funding of electioneering communications, the definition of “electioneering communication,” and the rules governing reporting of electioneering communications.

The Commission is seeking public comment on two proposed alternative ways to implement the WRTL II decision in the rules governing electioneering communications. The first alternative would incorporate the new exemption into the rules prohibiting the use of corporate and labor organization funds for electioneering communications in 11 CFR part 114. The second alternative would incorporate the new exemption into the definition of “electioneering communication” in 11 CFR 100.29.

Alternative 1—Proposed revisions to the corporate and labor organization prohibition.

Under the Act, electioneering communications are subject to both funding restrictions and reporting requirements. Specifically, entities that spend a total of more than $10,000 on electioneering communications in a calendar year must file disclosure reports with the FEC. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(1). Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from using general treasury funds to pay for any electioneering communication. See 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2). The plaintiff in WRTL II challenged only BCRA's corporate and labor organization funding restrictions and did not contest either the definition of “electioneering communication” in section 434(f)(3), or the reporting requirement in section 434(f)(1). See WRTL II, 127 S. Ct. at 2658-59; see also Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ¶ 36 (July 28, 2004) in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC (No. 04-1260), available at http://fecds005.fec.gov/law/litigation_related.shtml#wrtl_dc (“WRTL does not challenge the reporting and disclaimer requirements for electioneering communications, only the prohibition on using its corporate funds for its grass-roots lobbying advertisements.”) Accordingly, the Commission could construe the Supreme Court's holding that the Act's electioneering communication funding restrictions are unconstitutional as applied to certain advertisements as not extending to the reporting requirements for electioneering communications.

BCRA added the electioneering communications reporting requirements to the Act through a different provision (section 201) than the BCRA provision containing the corporate prohibition on making electioneering communications (section 203). The Commission seeks comment as to whether the scope of the WRTL II decision is limited to an as-applied challenge to the section 203 prohibitions and whether the Commission has the authority to change its electioneering communications rules beyond what is required by the Supreme Court's decision. Does the holding in WRTL II depend on a finding that the prohibition on using corporate and labor organization funds for electioneering communications in section 203 is a direct limitation on speech? Do the reporting requirements in section 201 implicate the same concerns about direct restrictions on First Amendment rights, given that McConnell specifically upheld the electioneering communications reporting provisions as constitutional because they “d[o] not prevent anyone from speaking?” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 201 (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 241 (D.D.C. 2003)) (internal quotations omitted). See also Alaska Right To Life Comm. v. Miles, 441 F.3d 773, 788 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The [ McConnell ] Court was not * * * explicit about the appropriate standard of scrutiny with respect to disclosure requirements. However, in addressing extensive reporting requirements applicable to * * * ‘electioneering communications’ * * *, the Court did not apply ‘strict scrutiny’ or require a ‘compelling state interest.’ Rather, the Court upheld the disclosure requirements as supported merely by ‘important state interests.’ ”) (internal quotation omitted); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 60-84 (1976) (upholding FECA's reporting requirements); cf. Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U.S. 87, 98-99 (1982) (reporting requirements found unconstitutional when there was a “reasonable probability” that disclosure of information would lead to economic reprisals or physical threats).

Therefore, under Alternative 1, the Commission proposes to implement the WRTL II decision by creating an exemption solely from the prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organization funds to finance electioneering communications. The proposed revisions to 11 CFR 114.2 and proposed new section 114.15 would not create an exemption from either the overall definition of “electioneering communication” in section 100.29 or from the reporting requirements in section 104.20. Thus, corporations and labor organizations would be permitted to use general treasury funds for electioneering communications that qualify for the proposed exemption, but would be required to file electioneering communications disclosure reports once they spend more than $10,000 in a calendar year on such communications. See proposed revision to 11 CFR 104.20. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.

Alternative 2—Proposed revisions to the definition of “electioneering communication.”

Under Alternative 2, the Commission proposes to place the new exemption in 11 CFR 100.29(c) as an additional exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication.” This alternative would construe the Supreme Court's decision in WRTL II to hold that communications that qualify for the WRTL II exemption may not be constitutionally regulated as electioneering communications ( i.e. , if a communication satisfies the Court's test, it is not an “electioneering communication,” as that term is used in the Act), meaning that the associated reporting requirements are no longer applicable.

Placing the exemption within section 100.29(c) in the definition of “electioneering communication” would have at least two practical implications. First, if a communication satisfies the WRTL II exemption, and is therefore exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication,” the electioneering communications reporting requirements would not apply to the exempted communication. Second, an exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication” would extend beyond corporations and labor organizations to all “persons” paying for communications that satisfy the exemption articulated in WRTL II. See 11 CFR 104.20. The Commission understands this distinction would extend the Supreme Court's exemption to individuals, unincorporated entities, and QNCs, in addition to corporations and labor organizations. Would any other “persons” be affected?  5 The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the impact of these proposed regulations on “persons” under the Act.

Does WRTL II either permit or necessitate an exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication,” or give the Commission authority to create such an exemption? Would the Commission's statutory authority to create exemptions under 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(iv) be sufficient to create an exemption that satisfies the requirements of WRTL II ? If the Commission were to use its statutory authority set forth at 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(B)(iv) to create exemptions, would the statutory provision's PASO requirement be applicable, or does WRTL II supersede that requirement with respect to a communication that qualifies for the WRTL II exemption? Would WRTL II's functional equivalent test be a reasonable statutory construction of PASO? The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the appropriate scope of, and authority for, a new exemption.

The choice between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would also have implications for the coordinated communications rules, which rely in part on the definition of “electioneering communication” in section 100.29. See 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(C); 11 CFR 109.21(c). The Commission's coordinated communications rule includes four different content standards: (1) Electioneering communications; (2) public communications that republish campaign materials; (3) public communications that include express advocacy; and (4) public communications that refer to a Federal candidate during certain time periods before an election. See 11 CFR 109.21(c)(1)-(4). The proposed rules in Alternative 1 do not affect the coordinated communications rules because communications that qualify for the proposed exemption in section 114.15 would still be considered “electioneering communications” and thus meet the “electioneering communication” content standard in 11 CFR 109.21(c)(1). By contrast, because Alternative 2 creates an exemption from the definition of “electioneering communication,” any communication that qualifies for the exemption in proposed section 100.29(c)(6) could no longer meet the “electioneering communication” content standard in section 109.21(c)(1). However, under both alternatives, a communication that qualifies for the proposed new exemption may still be a “coordinated communication” under one of the other three content standards in sections 109.21(c)(2)-(4). Thus, under both alternatives, exempt communications made by corporations or labor organizations may still be prohibited in-kind contributions as “coordinated communications.” The Commission seeks comment on the effects of each alternative on the coordinated communication rule.

WRTL II demarcated the constitutional reach of the Act's electioneering communications funding restrictions. Does WRTL II also provide guidance regarding the constitutional reach of other provisions in the Act? WRTL II's “functional equivalent of express advocacy” test limiting the electioneering communication prohibition draws upon the Supreme Court's express advocacy construction of “independent expenditure,” first appearing in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and later applied in the context of section 441b's corporate expenditure ban in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986). The Court's equating of the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” with communications that are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate” bears considerable resemblance to components of the Commission's definition of express advocacy at 11 CFR 100.22. Section 100.22(a) deems communications that “in context can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s)” to be express advocacy. Express advocacy may also be found under section 100.22(b) when, in context, a communication “could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s).” Does WRTL II require the Commission to revise or repeal any portion of its definition of express advocacy at section 100.22? Does the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” test from WRTL II also demarcate the constitutional reaches of Commission regulation of independent expenditures?

Section 434(f)(3)(B)(ii) excludes “an expenditure or an independent expenditure” from the definition of “electioneering communication.” Would a definition of “express advocacy” (which, in turn, defines “independent expenditure”) that subsumes all electioneering communications effectively nullify section 434(f) by deeming all “functional equivalent” communications to be “expenditures” and thus by definition not electioneering communications? Would these coextensive definitions leave any independent meaning to the electioneering communications reporting requirements, because there would be no remaining class of electioneering communications to be reported? Would this combination of definitions likewise rob the electioneering communication prohibition in section 441b(b)(2) (and proposed new 11 CFR 114.15) of independent significance by construing the corporate expenditure prohibition as coextensive with the corporate electioneering communications prohibition? What are the implications of having different regulatory language defining the scope of the prohibitions?

Section 114.2(b)(2)(iii) implements the funding restrictions of 2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2) by prohibiting corporations and labor organizations from “[m]aking payments for an electioneering communication to those outside the restricted class.” After the WRTL II decision, that section must be amended to reflect that corporations and labor organizations cannot constitutionally be prohibited from funding certain types of communications that fall within the statutory definition of electioneering communications. However, placing a detailed exemption based on the WRTL II decision within section 114.2(b) could be confusing and difficult for the reader to find. Thus, the Commission proposes to set out the WRTL II exemption in a new proposed section 114.15, and to amend section 114.2(b) by cross-referencing the exemption in section 114.15. See proposed 11 CFR 114.2(b)(3) (“Except as provided at 11 CFR 114.10 and 114.15 * * * ”). 6

Under Alternative 2, no revisions to section 114.2(b) are proposed. If a communication is exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication” at 11 CFR 100.29, it would not be subject to the prohibition set forth at current section 114.2(b).

The new exemption in proposed section 114.15 would only apply to certain types of communications that meet the current definition of “electioneering communication” in 11 CFR 100.29. Proposed paragraph (a) would set forth the general standard for determining whether the use of corporate and labor organization funds for an electioneering communication is permissible under WRTL II . Proposed paragraph (b) would include safe harbor provisions for two common types of communications: grassroots lobbying communications, and commercial or business advertisements. Proposed paragraph (c) would address reporting obligations for corporations and labor organizations that choose to use general treasury funds to pay for permissible electioneering communications.

The new exemption in proposed section 100.29(c)(6) would apply to certain types of communications that otherwise meet the current definition of “electioneering communication” in 11 CFR 100.29(a). Proposed paragraph (c)(6) would set forth the general standard for determining whether a communication is exempt from the definition of “electioneering communication” pursuant to WRTL II . Proposed paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) are identical to proposed section 114.15(b), and would include the same safe harbor provisions for two common types of communications: grassroots lobbying communications, and commercial or business advertisements. Alternative 2 does not include a paragraph that is equivalent to proposed section 114.15(c), because there would be no reporting requirements for communications that satisfy the proposed exemption.

Because the substantive requirements of the proposed WRTL II exemption and the included safe harbors would be the same under either Alternative 1 or 2, the following discussion applies equally to both alternatives.

The Supreme Court in WRTL II held that the Act's prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organization funds to pay for electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to communications that are not the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy. WRTL II , 127 S. Ct. at 2659. Under WRTL II , “an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” WRTL II , 127 S. Ct. at 2667.

Under Alternative 1, proposed section 114.15(a) would provide that corporations and labor organizations may make an electioneering communication (as defined in 11 CFR 100.29) without violating the prohibition in section 114.2(b)(3), “if the communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate.” Under Alternative 2, proposed section 100.29(c)(6) would provide that if the communication “is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate,” it is exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication” set forth at 11 CFR 100.29(a).

The proposed exemptions in the two alternatives would be objective, “focusing on the substance of the communication rather than amorphous considerations of intent and effect.” WRTL II , 127 S. Ct. at 2666. In determining whether a particular communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate, the Commission may consider “basic background information that may be necessary to put an ad in context.” Id. at 2669. According to the WRTL II opinion, this information could include whether a communication “describes a legislative issue that is either currently the subject of legislative scrutiny or likely to be the subject of such scrutiny in the near future.” Id. (internal citation omitted). The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should the Commission include in the Explanation and Justification or the rule itself a list of examples of information that would be included as “basic background information”? What information beyond the “four corners” of the communication may the Commission consider as “basic background information”? What examples should the Commission use?

The Commission proposes, under both alternatives, to supplement the general exemption with two safe harbors. The safe harbors are identical under both alternatives. The two safe harbors would focus on the content of the communication rather than its intent and effect. Satisfying one of the safe harbor provisions would demonstrate that the communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a Federal candidate. A communication that qualifies for one of the safe harbors would be deemed to satisfy the general exemption set forth in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6). However, a communication that does not qualify for either of the safe harbors may still come within the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6).

The Commission seeks comment on the proposed approach of creating safe harbors in addition to a general exemption. Do safe harbor provisions based on categorical content-based requirements provide useful additional guidance to entities applying the general exemption, or is the general exemption sufficiently clear so that further guidance is unnecessary? Should the Commission, instead of, or in addition to, creating safe harbors, provide an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered when determining whether a communication is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified Federal candidate? If the Commission provides a list of factors, should it include factors in addition to those listed in the proposed safe harbors and WRTL II ? Are there any factors that could support a conclusion that a communication is per se the functional equivalent of express advocacy?

Under both alternatives, proposed sections 114.15(b)(1) or 100.29(c)(6)(i) would establish identical safe harbors for grassroots lobbying communications based on WRTL II's analysis of the specific advertisements at issue in the case. The Supreme Court determined that WRTL's advertisements were not the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” because the communications’ content was “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad” and the communications lacked “indicia of express advocacy.” WRTL II , 127 S. Ct. at 2667. The Supreme Court concluded that the content of the communications was “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad” because they focused on a legislative issue, took a position on the issue, exhorted the public to adopt the position, and urged the public to contact public officials with respect to the issue. Id. The Court found that the communications lacked “indicia of express advocacy” because they did not mention any election, candidacy, political party, or challenger, and the communications did not take positions on a candidate's character, qualifications, or fitness for office. Id.

Accordingly, the first two prongs of the proposed safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications (proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(i) and (ii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A) and (B)) would incorporate the factors the Court used to determine whether a communication's content is “consistent with that of a genuine issue ad.” The third and fourth prongs (proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iii) and (iv) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C) and (D)) would incorporate the factors the Court used to determine whether a communication lacks “indicia of express advocacy.” A communication would qualify for the proposed safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications only if it satisfies all four prongs. The Commission invites comment on whether a showing that the communication meets all four prongs (and all elements of each prong) should be required to come within the safe harbor. If not all elements or prongs are essential, how should the safe harbor be constructed? What is the relationship between the first two positive content prongs (discussing a pending legislative matter and urging a position on an officeholder or the public) and the last two negative or exclusionary prongs (not mentioning certain topics and not taking a position on certain issues)? Should the safe harbors be described only by the “positive content prongs” and the exclusionary factors be used as tests for the “no other reasonable meaning” portion of the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a)? Should the grassroots lobbying communications safe harbor contain different requirements depending upon whether the Commission decides to implement the exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or proposed section 100.29(c)(6)?

a. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(i) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A)

The first prong of the safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(i) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A) would be that the communication “exclusively discusses a pending legislative or executive matter or issue.” A “pending legislative or executive matter or issue” includes: a legislative proposal introduced in Congress as a bill or resolution, or a pending proposal that has not yet been formally introduced as a bill; the confirmation of a nominee; or the use of legislative procedures such as filibustering, cloture votes, or earmarking. The proposed safe harbor would also include communications discussing pending “executive” matters because Federal candidates who are officeholders in the executive branch of Federal, State or local government also may be lobbied to take action on matters involving public policy. In addition, this prong would include current and pending matters of public debate that engage Congress or the Executive Branch. In describing the legislative focus of the advertisement, the WRTL II opinion does not use the term “exclusive.” If an advertisement is “exclusively” about a legislative issue (as proposed in the rule), are the exclusionary factors (limiting other content) necessary?

The Commission is considering whether to include the following as examples of what would constitute a “legislative or executive matter or issue” under this proposed prong:

• A bill designated “H.R.1” or “S.1”;

• An initiative or undertaking proposed by the President of the United States;

• An issue that rises to prominence through events occurring in the States, such as border control;

• An issue that is given prominence by a Supreme Court decision, such as eminent domain.

b. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B)

The second prong of the proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B) would be that the communication “urges an officeholder to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter or issue, or urges the public to adopt a particular position and to contact the officeholder with respect to the matter or issue.” In addition to communications that urge the public to contact a public official (such as those in WRTL II ), this requirement would also be met if the communication directly urges the officeholder to take a particular position or action regarding the legislative or executive matter or issue.

Communications discussing a Federal candidate who is not a Federal, State or local officeholder would not come within the proposed safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should the safe harbor be so limited, or should communications discussing Federal candidates who are not officeholders also be eligible for the safe harbor? For example, could a communication that asks a Federal candidate who is not an officeholder to sign a pledge to support a particular issue if elected be reasonably construed as other than an appeal to vote for or against that candidate? Are there instances in which an entity has “lobbied” a Federal candidate to take a particular position or action once elected?

The Commission is also considering whether to include the following as examples of what would constitute exhortations to the officeholder under the proposed prong:

• “Congressman Smith, vote yes on H.R.1.”

• “The Association of Local Merchants calls on Governor Smith to Sign the Tax Reduction Act of 2006.”

• “We urge President Smith to stand with America's workers and support expanded health care coverage.”

• “Congressman Smith, vote for the President's health care initiative.” Similarly, some examples of urging the general public to act under the proposed safe harbor would include the following:

• “Call Congressman Smith at (202) 555-1234 and tell him to vote yes on H.R.1.”

• “Write to Governor Smith at the address on the screen and ask him to sign the Tax Reduction Act of 2006.”

• Send President Smith an e-mail to tell him that you hope he will stand with America's workers and support expanded health care coverage. His e-mail address is Mr.Smith@whitehouse.gov. ”

• “Contact Congressman Smith and ask him to vote for the President's health care initiative [contact information on screen].”

Should these examples appear in the Explanation and Justification that would accompany the final rule or should they be incorporated into the rule itself? Should further examples be added to the list or should some examples be removed from it? Should an advertisement that urges the public to “Call Congressman Smith and thank him for voting for H.R. 1” satisfy this prong of the safe harbor?

The Commission seeks comment on whether the criteria for the safe harbor in proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(i) and (ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A) and (B) accurately reflect the content of a “genuine issue ad” as noted by WRTL II . Should the Commission add further prongs to ensure that the content of the communication would be fully consistent with that of a grassroots lobbying communication?

c. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C)

The third prong of the proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C) would be that the communication “does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public.” The proposed prong would include “voting by the general public” in addition to the terms listed in the WRTL II decision as further indicia of express advocacy. For example, a communication would not meet this prong if it discussed a Federal candidate's position on certain pending legislative issues, but concluded with the tag line “Vote. It's important to your future.” Should references to voting by the general public in an election be included as additional indicia of express advocacy? Could communications that provide the address of campaign headquarters as an officeholder's contact information satisfy this prong of the proposed safe harbor under either alternative, or would such communications be considered to be referring to the officeholder's candidacy? Should only communications that provide contact information at the incumbent officeholder's Federal or State government office or a district office qualify for the proposed safe harbors?

The Commission invites comment on whether the following examples “mention” elections, candidacy, political parties or opposing candidates sufficient to transform a communication into the functional equivalent of express advocacy (if these factors are used to assess permissible electioneering communications) or to remove them from the proposed new safe harbors.

• Specific reference to a named election date, such as “Support gun rights this November 5” or “Perform your civic duty November 5 to protect the environment.”

• Specific reference to elections in general, such as “Remember to vote to preserve private property come election time.”

• Reference to election-related themes, such as pictures or text references to: (1) a ballot, (2) ballot box, (3) polls, (4) franchise, (5) suffrage.

• Specific description of named candidate and the election, such as “Bob Jones is running for Senate;” or “Before Bob Jones ran for the House he never paid property taxes.”

• Specific description of named candidate, such as “Tim Wirth has a right to run for Senate, but he doesn't have a right to * * *.”  7

• Specific reference to office or candidacy, such as “Vote for liberty when picking your Senator!” or “There's an important choice for Senator this year.”

• Reference to candidacy by unique events or actions related to office, such as “Remember the House Bank scandal? This November, let's do better.”

• Implied references to candidacy, such as: (1) Photo shots of candidate near Capitol; (2) candidate appears in mock-setting of government office; (3) other images reasonably suggesting candidacy.

• Specific reference to a recognized party, such as “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “Libertarians,” or “Greens.”

• Reference to political parties by nickname or proxy description, “Remember to support the GOP!” or “liberals in Congress;” or “the War party in Washington;” or “Support the party of Lincoln and Reagan;” or graphics reasonably understood to reference the party ( e.g. elephants or donkeys).

• Reference to incumbent and opposing candidate, such as “Bob Barry supports our troops; Bill Jones cut veterans' benefits by 20%.”

• Reference to incumbent, implying opposing candidate, such as “It's time to take out the trash, select real change with Bob Barry.”

• Generic references to opposing candidate, such as an advertisement in which the opposing candidate appears as “Rocky” the prizefighter.

d. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D).

The final prong of the proposed safe harbor would state that the communication “does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office.” See proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D). It may be argued, however, that effective lobbying may require reference to an officeholder's position or record on a particular issue. For example, an organization may find it difficult to convey its support for, or opposition to, an officeholder's prior position on a public policy issue unless that position is identified. Thus, a discussion of an officeholder's position on a public policy issue or legislative record may be consistent with the content of a genuine issue advertisement and may, therefore, not automatically render a communication ineligible for the proposed safe harbor. However, if a communication discusses an officeholder's past position on an issue in a way that implicates the officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office, then the communication would not meet this prong of the proposed safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. How should the Commission determine if an officeholder's past position on an issue is discussed in a way that implicates the officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office?

In McConnell, the Supreme Court used a hypothetical “Jane Doe” advertisement as an example of the type of advertisements that would be subject to the electioneering communications rules. This hypothetical advertisement “condemned Jane Doe's record on a particular issue before exhorting viewers to `call Jane Doe and tell her what you think.” ' McConnell, 540 U.S. at 127. The Justices in WRTL II disagreed as to whether this Jane Doe hypothetical would be considered “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” See 127 S. Ct. at 2667 n.6 (Roberts, C.J.) (distinguishing the Jane Doe hypothetical from the WRTL advertisements); 127 S. Ct. at 2683 n.7 (Scalia, J.) (contending that the new exemption covers the Jane Doe hypothetical); 127 S. Ct. at 2698-99 (Souter, J.) (arguing that the WRTL advertisements are indistinguishable from the Jane Doe hypothetical). The Commission seeks comment on how an advertisement similar to the Jane Doe hypothetical should be treated under the proposed rule. If an advertisement merely condemns a candidate's record on an issue would it fail to satisfy the fourth prong of the safe harbor? Would such an advertisement also fail to meet the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or 100.29(c)(6)? Would the outcome be different if the advertisement condemned a candidate's record but also included a discussion of the legislative issue itself? Does eligibility for the WRTL II exemption depend on the strength of the condemnation or on whether the condemnation is the sole or main content of the advertisement? Are there advertisements that describe issues in such inflammatory terms that merely to recite the candidate or officeholder's position is to comment on the individual's character, qualifications, or fitness for office? ( E.g., “H.R. 6000 would legalize infanticide. Congressman Jones supports this bill. Call Congressman Jones and tell him to stop supporting baby killing and oppose H.R. 6000.”) Are there criteria the Commission could use to define such advertisements, or would any attempt by the Commission to devise such criteria risk impairing the speaker's “autonomy to choose the content of his own message?” See WRTL II, 127 S. Ct. at 2671 n.9.

The Commission invites comment on whether the following examples of statements about a candidate take a position on a candidate's “character, qualifications, or fitness for office” sufficient to transform a communication into the functional equivalent of express advocacy.

• The candidate is acting from an improper motive: favoring special interests, or specific interests for improper or insufficient reasons.

• Defamatory statements about the candidate.

• The candidate is failing to adhere to standards of a profession, trade or office.

• The candidate is failing to abide by religious convictions.

• The candidate is failing to fulfill family, personal, civil or legal obligations or duties ( e.g. divorce proceedings, family law matters, fidelity, bankruptcy, medical or professional malpractice proceedings, sexual harassment or employment-related litigation).

• Allegations that the candidate has violated a law or ordinance.

• The candidate has poor performance in job or school (based on official work/academic record or based on peer judgment of candidate's school and work record).

• Allegations that the candidate misrepresented his own record or accomplishments.

• Negative characterizations of a candidate's vote, voting record or position on an issue, such as “Congressman Rogers has the worst environmental voting record in the Calizona Congressional delegation.”

• Peer's recollection of candidate's reputation ( e.g. “hardworking,” “scandalous,” “faithful public servant,” “philanderer,” “tenacious”).

• The candidate's untruthfulness or untrustworthiness, truthfulness or reliability.

• The candidate's patriotism or lack thereof.

• The candidate's sound judgment or lack thereof.

• The candidate's effectiveness in politics or professional endeavors (receipt of awards or recognition).

• The candidate's history or absence of public, military, or community service.

• The candidate's loyalty to political party.

• The candidate's service to constituents.

• Demonstration of the candidate's knowledge of requisite topics.

• Medical, psychological or mental fitness of the candidate: Is the candidate in good medical standing for public service?

e. Examples.

The Commission is considering whether to include in the rule or the Explanation and Justification for the final rule examples of communications that would, and would not, satisfy the four prongs of the safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications. These examples are drawn from actual communications evaluated by the courts in electioneering communications cases. The Commission is also considering whether to provide, in the rule or the Explanation and Justification for the final rule, examples of communications that would be the functional equivalent of express advocacy under the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6). The Commission seeks comment on whether such examples should be provided, and what types of communications would be appropriate examples.

The following examples are illustrative only and are not intended to create a requirement for any particular words or phrases that must be included for a communication to qualify for the safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on the application of the proposed safe harbor to these examples, and asks whether further examples would be helpful.

This communication would come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Its content is consistent with that of a genuine issue advertisement because it focuses exclusively on the pending legislative matter of Senate filibuster votes on judicial nominees (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A)), and urges viewers to contact Senators Feingold and Kohl to take a position with respect to the filibuster issue (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B)). Further, the communication does not contain indicia of express advocacy: it does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C)), and it does not take a position on the character, qualifications, or fitness for office of Senators Feingold or Kohl (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D)).

This communication fails to satisfy the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives in several ways. Although the advertisement mentions a past vote against child support enforcement, the communication does not exclusively discuss a pending legislative matter or issue. Instead, it discusses the candidate's own personal and legal history. Similarly, the exhortation, “Tell him to support family values,” does not urge the public to tell Yellowtail to take a specific position or action with respect to a pending legislative matter or issue. Therefore, the communication's content is not consistent with that of a genuine issue advertisement. Further, the communication attacks Bill Yellowtail's character by referring to alleged actions he took against his spouse, his delinquent child-support payments, and his past felony conviction (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D)). Thus, the communication also contains indicia of express advocacy.

If the Commission decides to provide examples of communications that would be the functional equivalent of express advocacy under the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6), would the Yellowtail advertisement be an appropriate example? What considerations would support a conclusion that this communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote against Bill Yellowtail? If this communication is not the functional equivalent of express advocacy, of what reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote against Bill Yellowtail is the communication susceptible?

This communication would come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Its content exclusively focuses on the pending legislative matter of the Marriage Protection Amendment (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A)), and urges viewers to contact Senators Snowe and Collins to urge them to support this pending legislation (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B)). This communication does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C)). In contrast to Example 2 above, this communication criticizes the Senators' past voting records only as part of a broader discussion of particular legislation, and it does not include or function as an attack on their personal character, qualifications, or fitness for office (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D)). Therefore, this communication does not include indicia of express advocacy.

The Commission seeks comment on whether this communication should come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Does its content exclusively discuss a pending legislative or executive matter or issue (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A))? Does the sentence “Tell him to protect America's environment” urge Congressman Ganske to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter or issue? Does the sentence “Congressman Ganske even voted to let corporations continue releasing cancer-causing pollutants into our air” discuss a past voting record as part of a broader discussion of a particular matter or issue, or does it serve to function as an attack on Congressman Ganske's character, qualifications, or fitness for office? If the sentence serves both purposes, should the advertisement come within the safe harbor? Does the sentence, “Congressman Ganske voted for the big corporations who lobbied these bills and gave him thousands of dollars in contributions,” function as an attack on Congressman Ganske's character, qualifications, or fitness for office (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(D))? If this sentence is removed, does that change the analysis? If the communication does not fall within the safe harbor, does the communication fall within the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6)? If the sentence regarding corporate contributions is removed, does the communication fall within the general exemption?

The Commission seeks comment on whether this communication should come within the proposed safe harbor in either of the two alternatives. Does its content exclusively discuss a pending legislative or executive matter or issue (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(A))? Does it contain an adequate call to action (proposed 114.15(b)(1)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(i)(B))? If the phrase “Call or visit our website to find out more” is replaced with “Contact Congressman Bass and tell him to support the Golden Trust Fund legislation,” does that change the analysis? Does the reference to two candidates competing for the same office constitute a reference to an “opposing candidate” (proposed section 114.15(b)(1)(iii) or 100.29(c)(6)(i)(C))? If the communication does not come within the safe harbor, does the communication fall within the general exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or section 100.29(c)(6)?

The Commission seeks comment on whether these two advertisements constitute the functional equivalent of express advocacy under either alternative. The Commission previously found reason to believe that both advertisements constituted express advocacy based on McConnell. Does the WRTL II decision change or strengthen that finding, given that both these advertisements comment on a candidate's qualifications or fitness for office?

Under WRTL II , corporations and labor organizations may not be prohibited from funding an electioneering communication unless that communication is the functional equivalent of express advocacy, meaning that it is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate. The Court found that the advertisements at issue in WRTL II were not the functional equivalent of express advocacy because they could be reasonably viewed as issue advocacy. However, issue advocacy is not the only conceivable non-electoral “reasonable interpretation” to which a communication might be susceptible. For example, the Commission has in several instances applied the Act and Commission regulations to communications that advertise a business or a product. 14 Because some communications that meet the definition of “electioneering communication” could reasonably be interpreted as having a non-electoral, business or commercial purpose, the Commission is proposing a safe harbor for business and commercial advertisements.

The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Is the holding in WRTL II limited in application to communications that contain issue advocacy or grassroots lobbying, or does the holding extend to other types of communications such as business and commercial advertisements? See Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of New York , 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (refusing to apply strict scrutiny First Amendment analysis to commercial advertisements, instead using four-part intermediate scrutiny test); 44 Liquormart, Inc . v. Rhode Island , 517 U.S. 484 (1996); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly , 533 U.S. 525 (2001) (same). The Supreme Court in Buckley stated: “The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order ‘to assure (the) unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' ” Buckley , 424 U.S. at 14 (quoting Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957)). Does WRTL II modify the long-standing jurisprudence that commercial speech is entitled to less Constitutional protection than political speech? The WRTL II decision addressed commercial speech, stating:

The safe harbor in both alternatives would employ the same two-step approach that the Court used in WRTL II to determine whether a communication is a “genuine issue ad.” The first two prongs of the safe harbor would ensure that the content of the communication is fully consistent with that of a genuine commercial advertisement, based on the Commission's experience applying the electioneering communications rule to commercial advertising in the past two election cycles. See proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(i) and (ii) or proposed 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A) and (B). The third and fourth prongs would incorporate the factors the WRTL II Court used to determine whether a communication lacks “indicia of express advocacy.” See proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) and proposed section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D). A communication would qualify for the proposed safe harbor for genuine business advertisements only if it satisfies all four prongs. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to include a proposed safe harbor for commercial advertisements. If so, are the proposed prongs appropriate? Should the commercial advertisements safe harbors contain different requirements depending upon whether the Commission decides to implement the exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) or proposed section 100.29(c)(6)?

As discussed above, a communication that qualifies for the proposed new safe harbor may still be a “coordinated communication” if it satisfies the content and conduct prongs in section 109.21. Thus, exempt communications made by corporations or labor organizations may still be prohibited in-kind contributions as “coordinated communications.” The Commission seeks comment on the effects of the commercial safe harbor on the coordinated communication rule.

a. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(i) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A)

The first prong of this proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(i) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A) would be that the communication “exclusively advertises a Federal candidate's or officeholder's business or professional practice or any other product or service.” This prong would be satisfied both by advertisements in which a Federal candidate or officeholder appears to promote a business, product for sale, or other commercial service, and by advertisements in which a Federal candidate or officeholder is referred to as the subject of a book or movie. This prong would apply to businesses owned or operated by, or employing, the candidate or officeholder, and publishers, distributors or promoters of books, films or plays that refer to the candidate or officeholder.

b. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(ii) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(B)

The second prong of the proposed safe harbor in proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(ii) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(B) would be that the communication “is made in the ordinary course of business of the entity paying for the communication.” For example, a restaurant owned by a Federal candidate could use its corporate general treasury funds to pay for advertisements featuring the owner/candidate. Similarly, an incorporated publisher or distributor of a book about a Federal candidate would be able to pay for an advertisement for that book. How should the Commission determine what constitutes an entity's “ordinary course of business”? Should the Commission review the advertising history or advertising patterns of the entity paying for the communication in order to evaluate this prong of the safe harbor? If the entity in question is a newly established business, should the fact that it has never before distributed broadcast advertisements indicate that it is not operating in the “ordinary course of business”?

c. Proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) or 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D)

The third and fourth prongs of the proposed safe harbor for commercial and business advertisements (proposed sections 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) or sections 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D)) would be identical to prongs three and four of the proposed safe harbor for grassroots lobbying communications in both alternatives. Accordingly, a commercial or business advertisement would qualify for the safe harbor only if it “does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public” and “does not take a position on any candidate's or officeholder's character, qualifications, or fitness for office.” See proposed 11 CFR 114.15(b)(2)(iii) and (iv) or 11 CFR 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D).

d. Example

The Commission is considering whether to include in the Explanation and Justification examples of communications that would satisfy all four prongs of the safe harbor for commercial and business advertisements. The following example is based on an actual communication in a past advisory opinion request. It is illustrative only and is not intended to create a requirement for any particular words or phrases that must be included for a communication to qualify for the safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on this example and asks whether further examples would be helpful.

This communication could satisfy the proposed safe harbor in either alternative. 16 The communication advertises a business owned by candidate Joe Smith (proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(i) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(A)). Assuming the communication was paid for in the ordinary course of business by a car dealership to advertise its business, it would satisfy proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(ii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(B). Finally, the communication does not mention any election, candidacy, political party, opposing candidate, or voting by the general public (proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(iii) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(C)), and it does not take a position on the candidate's character, qualifications, or fitness for office (proposed section 114.15(b)(2)(iv) or section 100.29(c)(6)(ii)(D)).

Are there other common categories of broadcast communication that often involve Federal candidates, yet would be reasonably interpreted as something other than as an appeal to vote, such as public service announcements or promotions of charities or charitable events?  17 Do other categories of communication warrant safe harbors similar to those proposed for lobbying and commercial communications? What elements would such a safe harbor contain?

Any person that has made electioneering communications aggregating in excess of $10,000 in a calendar year must file a statement that discloses, inter alia , the names and addresses of each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more during the period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar year and ending on the disclosure date. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(1)-(2); 11 CFR 104.20(b)-(c). However, the Act and Commission regulations provide the option that persons making electioneering communications may create a segregated bank account for funding electioneering communications in order to limit reporting to the donors for that account. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(E); 11 CFR 104.20(c)(7). The segregated bank account may only include funds contributed by individuals who are U.S. citizens or nationals, or permanent residents. Id . If a person does not create a segregated bank account and funds electioneering communications from its general account, that person must disclose all donors of over $1,000 to the entity during the current and preceding calendar year. See 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(F); 11 CFR 104.20(c)(8). Moreover, persons that do not use a segregated bank account must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that no corporate or labor organization's funds were used to pay any portion of an electioneering communication. See 11 CFR 114.14(d)(1).

The Commission is proposing to revise its rules on reporting and establishing segregated bank accounts for electioneering communications to accommodate reporting by corporations and labor organizations that choose to make electioneering communications that are permissible under proposed section 114.15.

Proposed section 114.15(c) would provide that corporations and labor organizations that make electioneering communications permissible under the WRTL II exemption in proposed section 114.15(a) totaling over $10,000 in a calendar year must file reports like other entities that make electioneering communications. This proposed section would include a cross reference to the electioneering communications reporting requirements in 11 CFR 104.20.

Current section 104.20(c)(7) only addresses segregated bank accounts containing funds solely from individuals who are “United States citizens, United States nationals, or who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20).” These provisions would continue to be applicable to a segregated bank account used to pay for any electioneering communications that do not come within the new WRTL II exemption under proposed 11 CFR 114.15. However, a new provision may be needed regarding reporting the receipt of corporate or labor organization funds to pay for electioneering communications coming under the new WRTL II exemption in proposed section 114.15.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to divide paragraph 104.20(c)(7) into paragraphs (c)(7)(i) and (c)(7)(ii). Paragraph (c)(7)(i) would address the segregated bank account used to pay for electioneering communications that would not come under new 11 CFR 114.15. It would follow current paragraph (c)(7) by barring corporations and labor organizations from donating to such an account. In contrast, paragraph (c)(7)(ii) would permit a segregated bank account to be used to pay for electioneering communications that are permissible under the new WRTL II exemption in 11 CFR 114.15. This second type of account could contain corporate and labor organization funds. The Commission is not proposing revisions to paragraph (c)(8), which provides for the reporting of “donors” when electioneering communications are not made using a segregated bank account.

Under the proposed regulations, how would a corporation or labor organization report an electioneering communication funded with general treasury funds? If the corporation or labor organization does not pay for the electioneering communication from an account described in proposed sections 104.20(c)(7)(ii) and 114.14(d)(2)(i), would the corporation or labor organization be required to report “the name and address of each donor who donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more” to the corporation or labor organization during the relevant reporting period, as required by 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(F) and 11 CFR 104.20(c)(8)? If so, how would a corporation or labor organization determine which receipts qualify as “donations”? Should the Commission limit the “donation” reporting requirement to funds that are donated for the express purpose of making electioneering communications?

Additionally, the Commission proposes to make conforming changes to 11 CFR 114.14(d)(2), which applies to the use of segregated bank accounts by persons that receive funds from corporations or labor organizations. Section 114.14(d)(2) would be divided into two paragraphs consistent with the proposed changes to section 104.20(c)(7). Paragraph (d)(2)(i) would allow any person (including corporations and labor organizations) wishing to make electioneering communications permissible under 11 CFR 114.15 to establish a segregated bank account for that exclusive purpose, and to limit reporting to donations to that account. In this circumstance, a corporation or labor organization that established such an account would report only donations made to the account for the purpose of electioneering communications, pursuant to 11 CFR 104.20(c)(7)(ii). Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) would continue to allow persons (other than corporations and labor organizations) to establish a segregated bank account to be used to exclusively pay for electioneering communications that do not come under the new exception in proposed 11 CFR 114.15. New paragraph (d)(2)(i) contains the same allowances and restrictions as old paragraph (d)(2), but clarifies that this option is not available to corporations and labor organizations.

The Commission believes that if organizations intend to make some electioneering communications that comply with the new WRTL II exemption and other electioneering communications that do not, or might not, come within the exemption, they would be well-advised to establish two separate bank accounts to ensure that corporate and labor organization funds are only accepted and used to fund exempt electioneering communications. Please note, however, that separate bank accounts would not be mandatory because organizations need only show that they used a reasonable accounting method to separate corporate and labor organization funds under 11 CFR 114.14(d)(1). 18 The Commission seeks comment on this approach.

Under Alternative 2, a communication that qualifies for the WRTL II exemption in proposed section 100.29(c)(6) would be exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication.” Provisions of the Commission's regulations imposing reporting requirements on persons making “electioneering communications” are inapplicable where the communication is exempted from the definition of “electioneering communication.” Under Alternative 2, the reporting requirements applicable to all communications that continue to meet the definition of “electioneering communication” would remain unchanged.

Section 114.4(c) sets out the types of communications that corporations and labor organizations may make either to the general public or to all employees and members. Such communications include registration and voting communications, official registration and voting information, voting records, and voting guides. Alternative 1 proposes adding new paragraph (c)(8) to state that any corporation or labor organization may make electioneering communications to the general public that fall within the new exemption in proposed section 11 CFR 114.15. Proposed paragraph (c)(8) would also make clear that QNCs may make electioneering communications regardless of whether they are permissible under 11 CFR 114.15. The Commission is not proposing any changes to its regulations concerning QNCs at section 114.10. 19

Current section 114.14 prohibits corporations and labor organizations from providing general treasury funds to pay for any electioneering communications whatsoever. The Commission's proposed revisions to this section under Alternative 1 would limit this prohibition to electioneering communications that do not come within the new WRTL II exemption in proposed section 114.15, consistent with the proposed changes to the general prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organizations funds in section 114.2.

Current paragraph (a)(1) of this section contains a general ban on corporations and labor organizations providing funds to any other person for the purpose of financing an electioneering communication. Likewise, current paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section prohibit persons that accept funds from corporations and labor organizations from using those funds to pay for electioneering communications, or from providing those same funds to any other person for the purpose of paying for an electioneering communication. Current paragraph (d)(1) of this section requires any person that receives funds from corporations and labor organizations, and that makes electioneering communications, to demonstrate by a reasonable accounting method that no corporate or labor organization funds were used to pay for the electioneering communication.

The proposed rule would modify paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1) and (2), and (d)(1) by adding the phrase “that is not permissible under 11 CFR 114.15” after the word “communication” in each paragraph. These proposed changes would implement WRTL II by limiting the prohibition on the use of corporate and labor organization funds to those electioneering communications that are the functional equivalent of express advocacy, and therefore would not be permissible under proposed new 11 CFR 114.15. Paragraph (d)(1) would be further revised by adding the phrase “other than corporations and labor organizations” after the word “Persons.” The Commission is proposing this change to avoid any suggestion that corporations and labor organizations may make electioneering communications that do not come within the new exception articulated in WRTL II. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.

The Commission certifies that the attached proposed rules, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification is that any small entities affected would not feel a significant economic impact from the proposed rule. Overall, the proposed rules would relieve a funding restriction that the current rules place on corporations and labor organizations and would therefore have a positive economic impact for any affected small entities. The proposed rules would allow small entities to engage in activity they were previously prohibited from funding with corporation or labor organization funding. Moreover, this activity (making and funding electioneering communications) is entirely voluntary, and any reporting obligations would only be triggered based on entities choosing to engage in this activity above a threshold of $10,000 per calendar year.

In addition, there are few “small entities” that would be affected by these proposed rules. The Commission's proposed revisions could affect for-profit corporations, labor organizations, individuals and some non-profit organizations. Individuals and labor organizations are not “small entities” under 5 U.S.C. 601(6), and most, if not all, for-profit corporations that would be affected by the proposed rule are not “small businesses” under 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Large national and state-wide non-profit organizations that might produce electioneering communications are not “small organizations” under 5 U.S.C. 601(4) because they are not independently owned and operated and they are dominant in their field. In addition, the factual record developed by the Commission in past electioneering proceedings indicates that few, if any, section 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations make broadcast, cable or satellite communications that refer to Federal candidates during the electioneering communication time frames to the targeted audience.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend Subchapter A of Chapter 1 of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-29064; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-128-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

The Civil Aviation Authority —The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the aviation authority for the Netherlands, has issued Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-002, dated January 24, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-26-019, dated January 6, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

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

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,040, or $80 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29063; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-049-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

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

We have received a report indicating that, during an inspection of the forward cargo compartment on a Model 767-300F airplane, an operator found charred insulation blankets and burned wires around the forward gray water composite drain mast. Additional charring on the insulation blankets was noticed several feet away along the routing of the drain mast's ground wire and power wires. Analysis of the damaged parts revealed that a lightning strike on the composite drain mast caused the damage to the wires and insulation blankets. This condition, if not corrected, could cause disruption of electrical power and fire and heat damage to equipment in the event of a lightning strike on the composite drain mast, which could result in the potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight.

A design review of the gray water composite drain mast installation on Model 737, 757, 767, and 777 airplanes revealed that the installation of a heavier bonding jumper is necessary to provide adequate lightning protection to the gray water composite drain mast installation. We are currently considering additional rulemaking to address the identified unsafe condition on Model 737, 757, and 777 airplanes.

We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-30-0047, dated January 25, 2007 (for Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-30-0048, dated January 25, 2007 (for Boeing Model 767-400ER series airplanes). The service bulletins describe procedures for installing a new ground bracket and a 135-ampere copper bonding jumper between the ground bracket and the clamp on the tube of the forward and aft gray water composite drain masts. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

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

There are about 86 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29062; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-020-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

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

We have received several reports indicating findings of fatigue cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting and stress corrosion cracking of the bolts attaching the fitting to the wing rear spar and certain adjacent components of the main landing gear (MLG) support beam on Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Those reports include the following: Cracking of the outboard stabilizing fitting attributed to fatigue, loose or missing forward pins that attach the stabilizing fitting to the stud assembly; a fractured aft pin that attaches the tube assembly to the aft stabilizing fitting, and fractured H-11 bolts that attach the inboard and outboard stabilizing fittings to the wing rear spar. These failures could result in disconnection of the MLG actuator from the rear spar and support beam, and consequent damage to the hydraulic system fluid supply tube causing hydraulic fluid leakage and loss of control of the airplane.

On December 30, 1998, we issued AD 98-11-04 R1, amendment 39-10984 (64 FR 987, January 7, 1999), for all Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes. That AD supersedes AD 91-14-20 to continue to require that the FAA-approved maintenance program be revised to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating for each Structural Significant Item (SSI). AD 98-11-04 R1 also requires additional and expanded inspections, and repair of cracked structure. That AD was prompted by a structural re-evaluation by the manufacturer which identified additional structural elements where, if damage were to occur, supplemental inspections may be required for timely detection. We issued that AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of the Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 fleet.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2007. For certain airplanes, the service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting and certain adjacent components of the MLG support beam. The replacement procedures and configuration group to which the airplane belongs, are as follows.

• For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the procedures describe replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting with a new titanium fitting and replacing the H-11 bolts that attach the fitting to the wing rear spar with new Inconel 718 bolts. In addition, the procedures describe replacing the aft pin that attaches the tube assembly to the aft outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium bolt, replacing the forward pin, and replacing the H-11 bolts for the inboard stabilizing fitting with new Inconel 718 bolts. As part of the replacement of the H-11 bolts, the service bulletin recommends contacting Boeing if corrosion damage is found which cannot be removed. The service bulletin also recommends prior or concurrent accomplishment of Part IV of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1052, Revision 4, dated October 24, 1980, for Group 1 and 3 airplanes. Part IV describes procedures for replacing the existing tube assembly of the MLG support beam with a new assembly. For airplanes that had the aft pin of the aft outboard stabilizing fitting replaced per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, dated May 8, 2003, the procedures specify performing a torque check of the aft pin of the aft outboard stabilizing fitting and corrective actions if necessary. If the torque is greater than 570 in. lbs., the corrective action is replacing the aft pin and aft outboard stabilizing fitting. If the torque is less than 570 in. lbs., the corrective action is replacing the aft pin.

• For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Groups 6 and 7, the procedures describe replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium fitting and replacing the H-11 bolts that attach the fitting to the wing rear spar with new Inconel 718 bolts. In addition, the procedures describe replacing the forward pin that attaches the stud assembly to the outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium pin. The procedures also describe replacing the H-11 bolts for the inboard stabilizing fitting with new Inconel 718 bolts for Group 6 only.

• For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 8, the procedures describe replacing the outboard stabilizing fitting with a titanium fitting, and replacing the forward pin that attaches the stud assembly to the outboard stabilizing fitting with new components.

• For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 9, the procedures describe doing a general visual inspection of the outboard stabilizing fitting and fasteners for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective action is contacting Boeing if any discrepancies are found.

For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 8, and Groups 1 through 7 on which the existing H-11 bolts were previously replaced with Inconel 718 bolts, the procedures describe an alternative magnetic test of the attach bolts to determine if inspections could be done that may extend the compliance time for the replacement of the outboard stabilizing fitting. If any bolt is magnetic, do not do the alternative inspection. If none of the bolts are magnetic, do a one-time general visual inspection of the stabilizing fitting for discrepancies (damage, failure, or irregularity), and a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the fitting inboard and outboard lug faces, the fillet radii, and the fitting lug hole, and verify the fitting hole is within limits, and corrective actions if necessary. Performing the alternative inspection extends the compliance time from 36 to 60 months for replacing the fitting if no cracking is found.

The corrective actions for the alternative inspections are as follows:

• If cracking is found during the alternative inspection, the service bulletin specifies doing the replacement of the fitting as specified in Part II of the service bulletin. If no cracking is found, the service bulletin specifies doing an installation of replacement bushings and reaming the bushing holes to final size, replacing the forward pin, and for Groups 1 through 5, replacing the aft pin. If any other damage is found or if the fitting hole is beyond the hole size limits, the service bulletin recommends contacting Boeing for repair instructions.

For all airplanes, the service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the outboard stabilizing fitting, walking beam hanger, and rear spar attachment fitting, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective action is contacting Boeing if any discrepancies are found.

Service Bulletin 737-57A1266 refers to the following service bulletins as acceptable sources of service information:

Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1231, dated December 1, 1994, is an acceptable source of service information for accomplishment of the replacement of the H-11 attachment bolts of the inboard stabilizing fitting with new components for some airplane groups.

Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1073, Revision 4, dated April 12, 1985, is an acceptable source of service information for previous accomplishment of the replacement of the MLG support beam.

We have determined that accomplishment of the actions specified in Service Bulletin 737-57A1266 will adequately address the unsafe condition.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266, Revision 1, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1266.”

For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Groups 1 through 5 on which the aft pin of the outboard stabilizing fitting has been replaced in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin: The service bulletin recommends accomplishing the torque check of the aft pin within 36 months after the original issue date of the service bulletin, and, if the aft pin does not pass the torque check, replacing the aft pin and aft outboard stabilizing fitting within an additional 36 months after the torque check. However, we have determined that interval would not address the identified unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. We find that a compliance time of within 36 months after accomplishing the replacement, or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later, for doing the torque check and doing all applicable corrective actions before further flight, represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with the manufacturer.

Certain sections in Parts I, II, and V of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specify “For 737-100 and -200 airplanes” and “For 737-300 and -500 airplanes.” Those sections are applicable to Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes, and Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes, respectively. Model 737-200C and -400 airplanes were inadvertently excluded from those sections.

The service bulletin also specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• Using a method that we approve; or

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

There are about 3,130 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 1,380 airplanes of U.S. registry.

For all airplanes: The proposed replacement would take between 20 and 24 work hours per airplane to do, depending on the airplane's configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost between $3,658 and $4,272 per airplane, depending on the airplane's configuration. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed replacement is estimated to be up to between $7,256,040 and $8,544,960, or between $5,258 and $6,192 per airplane, depending on the airplane's configuration.

For Groups 1 through 8 airplanes: The alternative inspection, if done, would take about 12 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the alternative inspection is estimated to be up to $1,324,800, or $960 per airplane.

For Group 9 airplanes: The general visual inspection would take about 2 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the general visual inspection is estimated to be up to $220,800, or $160 per airplane.

For Groups 1 through 5 airplanes that had steel pins replaced per the original issue of the service bulletin: The torque check would take about 7 work hours per airplane to do, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the torque check is estimated to be up to $772,800, or $560 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29065; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-142-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the ground level 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.

We have received a report indicating that a fractured trunnion fork assembly was found during push back and tow of an airplane. Analysis showed that a crack was initiated by fatigue on the inner surface and eventually fractured by ductile rupture. The analysis also showed that the crack most likely initiated as a result of two manufacturing anomalies. A fractured trunnion fork assembly could result in the collapse of a wing landing gear on the ground and possible damage to hydraulic equipment and the aileron and spoiler cables. Such damage could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-32A2482, dated June 14, 2007. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the pad-up area on the forward upper inboard surface of the trunnion fork assembly of both the left and right wing landing gears to determine the part number and serial number and to determine the category of the trunnion fork assemblies. For certain airplanes, the service information describes the following procedures, as applicable:

• Doing an initial detailed inspection for damage to the protective finish and for corrosion of the trunnion fork assembly, and an initial high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracks of the trunnion fork assembly (Part 2).

• Doing an ultrasonic inspection to determine the wall thickness in the area forward of the outer cylinder attach lugs in 8 zones, and a hardness measurement if the wall thickness is less than the specified value (Part 3).

• Doing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. The related investigative actions include repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections (Part 2). The corrective actions include overhauling the trunnion fork assembly (Part 4), and replacing the trunnion fork assembly (Part 5); as applicable.

• Replacing the trunnion fork assembly of the wing landing gear with a certain trunnion fork assembly (Part 5). Accomplishing the replacement ends the need for the actions specified in the service information.

Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The compliance time for the initial detailed, HFEC, and ultrasonic inspections and replacement specified in the service information is either 18 months or 6 years, depending on the category of the trunnion fork assembly. The compliance time for the related investigative/corrective actions specified in the service information ranges between before further flight and 10 years, depending on the condition of the trunnion fork assembly.

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

There are about 1,055 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 215 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection for part number, serial number, and category would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this inspection proposed by this AD for U.S. operators is $17,200, or $80 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-29061; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-243-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

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

On March 31, 2006, we issued AD 2006-07-25, amendment 39-14552 (71 FR 18201, April 11, 2006), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-50, -60, -60F, and -70 series airplanes; Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. That AD requires an initial general visual or dye penetrant inspection, repetitive dye penetrant inspections, and replacement, as necessary, of the rudder pedal bracket. The existing AD also requires, for certain airplanes, replacing the rudder pedal bracket assemblies with new, improved parts, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from a report of numerous cracked rudder pedal brackets found during inspections of certain affected airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the rudder pedal bracket assembly, which could result in the loss of rudder and braking control at either the captain's or first officer's position.

Since we issued AD 2006-07-25, two Model MD-80 operators have reported failures of the captain's rudder pedal brackets before reaching the initial inspection threshold of 40,000 total landings specified in AD 2006-07-25. One operator reported finding a crack in the first officer's rudder pedal bracket at 34,000 landings. Lab analysis of these parts verified that fatigue was the cause of the failure. Boeing re-evaluated the current inspection interval and determined that lowering the initial threshold to 25,000 total landings is necessary for operators of Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes.

Boeing also determined that the general visual inspection for cracks is no longer necessary because the eddy current and dye penetrant inspections are adequate for Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. In addition, Boeing has lengthened the repetitive inspection interval for the eddy current and any applicable dye penetrant inspection (also called “special detailed inspections”) for these airplanes from intervals not to exceed 2,500 landings to intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings.

We have also clarified the applicability to include Model DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC8-73F airplanes. These models were inadvertently omitted from Table 1, paragraph (c), “Applicability,” of AD 2006-07-25. However, these models were included in the effectivity of McDonnell Douglas DC-8 Alert Service Bulletin A27-273, dated May 16, 1989, which we referred to in AD 2006-07-25 as a source for identifying airplanes affected by that AD.

We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, dated August 29, 2006. We referred to an earlier revision of this same service bulletin (McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-307, Revision 6, dated December 19, 1994) as the appropriate source of service information for doing certain actions in AD 2006-07-25.

The actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, are essentially the same as those in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A27-307, Revision 6. However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-27A307, Revision 7, revises certain inspection thresholds and intervals. Revision 7 also removes a general visual inspection for certain airplanes and, instead, specifies a special detailed inspection. The special detailed inspection consists of either doing an eddy current inspection for cracking of the rudder pedal bracket assemblies and, if any crack is found, doing a penetrant inspection for cracking; or doing the penetrant inspection for cracking of the rudder pedal bracket assemblies. Revision 7 includes a definition of a special detailed inspection.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2006-07-25 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also, for certain airplanes, reduce certain initial inspection thresholds, remove an inspection option, and lengthen certain repetitive inspection intervals.

We have changed the parts cost for the replacement to reflect the cost information in the current Boeing service information.

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 revised references to certain service information to more accurately reflect the reference as cited on the service information itself.

We have added a new paragraph (f) titled “Service Information and Airplane Categories” to reduce the length of the references to both in the AD itself. We have re-identified the paragraphs accordingly, and revised this action to refer to the airplane categories rather than list the models individually. We have also removed Note 2 of the existing AD because the new paragraph (f) makes the contents of the note unnecessary.

There are about 1,840 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The replacements are applicable only to Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-29066; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-147-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-08, dated June 4, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-27-106, dated February 7, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

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

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

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 150 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $36,000, or $240 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29067; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-148-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

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

We have received a report indicating that, during landing of a Model 757 airplane, an overheat warning and smoke occurred in the main cabin, and the right recirculation fan stopped operating. Investigation revealed fire damage to the right recirculation fan, the fan wiring bundle and electrical connector, and the insulation blankets in the mix bay. A fire, which extinguished without aid, had ignited in the top layer of the insulation blanket. The fire might have resulted from lint or dust touching a short circuit in the fan wiring bundle caused by chafing of the wire bundle against adjacent structure. This condition, if not corrected, could result in fire in the mix bay or smoke in the main cabin.

We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 757-21-0109, dated December 15, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection for damage of the wire bundle of the right recirculating fan and repair if necessary. The service bulletin also describes procedures, including re-orienting the electrical connector, for re-routing the wire bundle of the right recirculating fan. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

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

There are about 920 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 560 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $81 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $134,960, or $241 per airplane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29087; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-094-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

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

We have received a report indicating that the protective finishes on the forward trunnion pins for the main landing gear (MLG) might have been damaged during final assembly of Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. The protective coating could be damaged at two locations because of the use of an unauthorized process, and damaged at one location because the pin was not handled correctly. Therefore, it is possible that these trunnion pins have been delivered to operators with compromised corrosion protection in these critical areas:

• The cross-bolt bore and outer diameter surface.

• The lead-in chamfer and outer diameter surface.

• The transition radius between the chrome-plated outer diameter and the spherical ball bearing surface.

Damage to the protective finish puts the base metal of the trunnion pin at risk from corrosion pitting. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to cracking of the forward trunnion pin, which could result in fracture of the pin and consequent collapse of the MLG.

We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive lubrication of the MLG forward trunnion pins. The service bulletin states that accomplishing the inspections and applicable repairs/replacements described below, or overhauling the trunnion pins in accordance with Boeing 737 Component Maintenance Manual 57-15-01, eliminates the need for the repetitive lubrication.

The service bulletin also describes procedures for an inspection for discrepancies (corrosion, finish damage, surface deformation, or scratches) of the transition radius. If any discrepancy is found, the service bulletin specifies repairing or replacing the trunnion pin, as applicable, depending on the type of discrepancy found. The repair includes blending and restoring the protective finish. If the trunnion pin is not replaced, the service bulletin specifies an additional inspection for discrepancies of the lead-in chamfer and the cross-bolt bore. If any discrepancy is found, the service bulletin specifies repairing or replacing the trunnion pin, as applicable, depending on the type of discrepancy found.

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

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

Although Boeing Service Bulletin 737-32-1376, Revision 1, dated March 19, 2007, specifies to send inspection reports to the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not require that action.

There are about 890 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-29069; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-176-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located on the ground level 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.

In the early 1980's, as part of its continuing work to maintain the structural integrity of older transport category airplanes, we concluded that the incidence of fatigue cracking may increase as these airplanes reach or exceed their design service objective (DSO). In light of this, and as a result of increased utilization, and longer operational lives, we determined that a supplemental structural inspection program (SSIP) was necessary to maintain the continued structural integrity for all airplanes in the transport fleet.

As a follow-on from that determination, we issued AC No. 91-56, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport Category Airplanes,” dated May 6, 1981. That AC provides guidance material to manufacturers and operators for use in developing a continuing structural integrity program to ensure safe operation of older airplanes throughout their operational lives. This guidance material applies to transport airplanes that were certified under the fail-safe requirements of part 4b (“Airplane Airworthiness, Transport Categories”) of the Civil Air Regulations or damage tolerance structural requirements of part 25 (“Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR part 25), and that have a maximum gross weight greater than 75,000 pounds. The procedures set forth in that AC are applicable to transport category airplanes operated under subpart D (“Special Flight Operations”) of part 91 of the FAR (14 CFR part 91); part 121 (“Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations”); part 125 (“Certification and Operations: Airplanes having a Seating Capacity of 20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload of 6,000 Pounds or More”); and part 135 (“Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operations”) of the FAR (14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135). The objective of the SSIP was to establish inspection programs to ensure timely detection of fatigue cracking.

In order to evaluate the effect of increased fatigue cracking with respect to maintaining fail-safe design and damage tolerance of the structure of Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, Boeing conducted a structural reassessment of those airplanes, using damage tolerance evaluation techniques. Boeing accomplished this reassessment using the criteria contained in AC No. 91-56, as well as Amendment 25-45 of section 25.571 (“Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure”) of the FAR (14 CFR 25.571). During the reassessment, members of the airline industry participated with Boeing in working group sessions and developed the SSIP for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. Engineers and maintenance specialists from the FAA also supported these sessions. Subsequently, based on the working group's recommendations, Boeing developed the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID).

We previously issued AD 98-11-04 R1, amendment 39-10984 (64 FR 987, January 7, 1999), applicable to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes (which refers to Boeing Document No. D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document” (SSID), Revision D, dated June 1995, as the appropriate source of service information for doing the required actions). That AD requires that the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program be revised to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each structural significant item (SSI), and repair of cracked structure. The affected SSIs include, but are not limited to, the wing, fuselage, empennage, and strut. For Model 737-200C series airplanes, that AD requires inspecting SSIs affected by cargo configuration changes only.

We have reviewed Boeing Document No. D6-37089, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Revision E, dated May 2007 (hereafter “Revision E”); and “Appendix A Model 737-100/200/200C Airplanes,” Original Release, dated May 2007, of Revision E (hereafter “Appendix A”). Revision E and Appendix A describe procedures for revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required DTR for each SSI, doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and repairing cracked structure. The inspections specified in Revision E are essentially identical to those in Revision D, except for Appendix A. Appendix A adds inspection procedures for SSIs on the wing trailing edge flap structure, which were not included previously in any revision of the SSID. Accomplishing the actions specified in Revision E and Appendix A is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

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

Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would require incorporation of a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the required DTR for each SSI listed in Appendix A.

Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would require repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs.

Paragraph (j) of the proposed AD would require repairing any cracked structure in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or an Authorized Representative (AR) for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the FAA to make those findings.

Paragraph (k) of the proposed AD specifies the requirements of the inspection program for transferred airplanes. Before any airplane that is subject to this proposed AD can be added to an air carrier's operations specifications, a program for doing the inspections required by this proposed AD must be established.

For Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes, and Model 737-200C series airplanes on which details are not affected by the cargo configuration, Section 3.0, “Structural Significant Items (SSIs),” of Revision E specifies a threshold of 66,000 flight cycles for accomplishing the initial inspections; however, it does not specify a grace period for airplanes that are near or exceeded that threshold. This proposed AD would allow a grace period of 12 months after the effective date of the AD to incorporate Appendix A into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program. This proposed AD also would allow a grace period of 4,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of the AD to initiate the applicable inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs.

Revision E does not specify instructions on how to repair certain conditions. This proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• Using a method that we approve; or

• Using data that have been approved by an AR for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

There are about 676 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

The number of work hours, as indicated above, is presented as if the accomplishment of the actions in this proposed AD is to be conducted as “stand alone” actions. However, in actual practice, these actions for the most part will be done coincidentally or in combination with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional work hours will be minimal in many instances. Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane scheduling will be minimal.

Further, compliance with this proposed AD would be a means of compliance with the aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) for the baseline structure of Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. The AASFR final rule requires certain operators to incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.370(a) and 129.16. Accomplishment of the actions required by this proposed AD will meet the requirements of these CFR sections for the baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection portion of this proposed AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

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

Several reports of exhaust system failures, which led to smoke in the cockpit and heat damage to components in the engine compartment, on Bellanca Model 17-30 and 17-30A airplanes caused us to issue AD 76-23-03-R1, Amendment 39-5454. AD 76-23-03-R1 currently requires you to do the following on Bellanca 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, and 17-31A airplanes:

• Visually inspect the muffler and tailpipe assemblies for cracks, paying particular attention to the ball joint welds, the outlets of the muffler and resonator, and the support for the tailpipe assembly; and

• Inspect the exhaust system for freedom of movement at the ball joints by removing the tailpipe support bolts.

Since issuing AD 76-23-03-R1, we have received additional reports of in-flight exhaust system failures. Typically, the muffler fails at the weld which holds the ball joint to the muffler. The hot exhaust gases then escape and melt insulation on the wire bundle that includes the magneto “P” leads. When both the left and right magneto “P” leads short to ground, the engine stops.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment.

We have reviewed Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007, and Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC drawing SK 1072, dated April 2, 2007.

The service information describes procedures for:

• Inspecting the exhaust system;

• replacing and/or repairing exhaust system parts; and

• rerouting the magneto “P” leads.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would supersede AD 76-23-03 R1 with a new AD that would reduce the exhaust system inspection interval; require a more detailed inspection of the muffler; and require replacement, reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust system if cracks or defects are found. This proposed AD would also require rerouting of the magneto “P” leads. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,350 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

We estimate the proposed inspection of the exhaust system would affect 1,200 airplanes with the following costs:

We estimate the proposed rerouting of the magneto “P” wires would affect 1,050 airplanes with the following costs:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28633 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-7) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-28633 and Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0500.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

On January 31, 2007, the U.S. Navy requested that the FAA take action to establish R-3405 at Sullivan, IN. The requested action would provide airspace needed to separate nonparticipating aircraft from a tethered aerostat balloon. The balloon is used at various locations within NSA Crane's Lake Glendora Test Facility to deploy radar, electro-optic, camera, and other sensor packages.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish R-3405 over an area near Sullivan, IN. The restricted area would enhance safety by separating nonparticipating aircraft from tethered balloon operations conducted by the Lake Glendora Test Facility. The restricted area would be relatively small, covering less than 1 square nm and extending from the surface up to 2,000 feet MSL.

Section 73.34 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order 7400.8N, dated February 16, 2007.

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes restricted airspace at Sullivan, IN.

This proposal will be subjected to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

On May 17, 2007, OSHA published a proposal that would update OSHA standards related to certain types of personal protective equipment (72 FR 27771). Interested parties were given until July 16, 2007, to submit comments on the proposal. The 3M Company, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International, and the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) all requested an informal public hearing on the proposal.

OSHA has proposed to update its standards requiring that certain types of personal protective equipment (PPE) meet specifically identified ANSI standards. OSHA proposed deleting the references to the ANSI standards from the regulatory text, replacing them with a requirement to use PPE constructed in accordance with good design standards, and adding criteria for determining what constitutes a good design standard within the meaning of the proposed standard. The proposed rule also included a non-mandatory appendix listing those national consensus standards that OSHA has determined meet the criteria of a good design standard.

ISEA has objected to OSHA's proposal because they believe that modifying the PPE design standards in this way would eliminate baseline performance requirements for PPE, potentially reducing employee protection and making compliance more difficult for employers. The 3M Company, ANSI and ASTM International also requested an informal public hearing.

In response to the objections received, OSHA is convening an informal public hearing on the proposed rule. The hearing will convene at 9 a.m. on December 4, 2007. OSHA invites interested parties to provide oral testimony and documentary evidence at the informal public hearing. This section describes the procedures the public must use to participate in the hearing.

The legislative history of section 6 of the OSH Act, as well as OSHA's regulation governing public hearings (29 CFR 1911.15), establish the purpose and procedures of informal public hearings. Although the presiding officer of such hearings is an ALJ, and questioning by interested parties is allowed on crucial issues, the proceeding is informal and legislative in purpose. Therefore, the hearing provides interested parties with an opportunity to make effective and expeditious oral presentations in the absence of procedural restraints or rigid procedures that could impede or protract the rulemaking process. In addition, the hearing is an informal administrative proceeding, rather than adjudicative one in which the technical rules of evidence would apply, because its primary purpose is to gather and clarify information. The regulations that govern public hearings, and the prehearing guidelines issued for this hearing, will ensure participants fairness and due process, and also will facilitate the development of a clear, accurate, and complete record. Accordingly, application of these rules and guidelines will be such that questions of relevance, procedure, and participation generally will favor development of the record.

Conduct of the hearing will conform to the provisions of 29 CFR part 1911, “Rules of Procedure for Promulgating, Modifying, or Revoking Occupational Safety and Health Standards.” The regulation at 29 CFR 1911.4, “Additional or Alternative Procedural Requirements,” specifies that the Assistant Secretary may, on reasonable notice, issue alternative procedures to expedite proceedings or for other good cause. Although the ALJs who preside over these hearings make no decision or recommendation on the merits of OSHA's proposal, they do have the responsibility and authority to ensure that the hearing progresses at a reasonable pace and in an orderly manner.

To ensure that interested parties receive a full and fair informal hearing as specified by 29 CFR part 1911, the ALJ has the authority and power to: Regulate the course of the proceedings; dispose of procedural requests, objections, and comparable matters; confine the presentations to matters pertinent to the issues raised; use appropriate means to regulate the conduct of the parties who are present at the hearing; question witnesses, and permit others to question witnesses; and limit the time for such questioning. At the close of the hearing, the ALJ will establish a post-hearing comment period for parties who participated in the hearing. During the first part of this period, the participants may submit additional data and information to OSHA; during the second part of this period, they may submit briefs, arguments, and summations.

Notice of Intention to Appear to Provide Testimony at the Informal Public Hearing . Interested parties who intend to provide oral testimony at the informal public hearings must file a written notice of intention to appear by October 1, 2007. In addition to containing the information required by the ADDRESSES section above, this notice must also provide the: name, address, and telephone number of each individual who will provide testimony; capacity (for example, the name of the establishment or organization the individual is representing and the individual's occupational title and position) in which each individual will testify; approximate amount of time required for each individual's testimony; a brief statement of the position that the individual will take with respect to the issue identified in this Notice; and a brief summary of any documentary evidence the individual intends to present.

OSHA emphasizes that the hearings are open to the public, and that interested parties are welcome to attend. However, only a party who files a complete notice of intention to appear may ask questions and participate fully at the hearing. If time permits and at the presiding ALJ's discretion, a party who did not file a notice of intention to appear may be allowed to testify at the hearing.

Hearing Testimony and Documentary Evidence . Parties who request more than 10 minutes for their presentations at the informal public hearing and parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary evidence no later than November 1, 2007. The Agency will review each submission and determine if the information it contains warrants the amount of time requested. If OSHA believes the requested time is excessive, it will allocate an appropriate amount of time to the presentation, and will notify the participant of this action, and the reasons for the action, before the hearing. The Agency may limit to 10 minutes the presentation of any participant who fails to comply substantially with these procedural requirements; in such instances, OSHA may request the participant to return for questioning at a later time.

Certification of the Record and Final Determination after the Informal Public Hearing . Following the close of the hearing and post-hearing comment period, the presiding ALJ will certify the record to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health; the record will consist of all of the written comments, oral testimony, and documentary evidence received during the proceeding. However, the ALJ does not make or recommend any decisions as to the content of the final standard. Following certification of the record, OSHA will review the proposed provisions in light of all the evidence received as part of the record, and then will issue the final rule based on the entire record.

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

Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps proposes to amend the danger zone regulations at 33 CFR 334.1380 to reflect current operational and safety procedures at the Ulupau Crater Weapons Training Range, Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH), Kaneohe Bay, Island of Oahu, Hawaii and highlight a change in the hours that weapons firing may occur. The proposed amendment will also provide more detailed times, dates, and extents of restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Connecticut's SIP, submitted on April 26, 2007. This SIP revision includes a new regulation, Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-22c, “The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Ozone Season Trading Program” (herein called “Connecticut's proposed CAIR program”), repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22a (“The Connecticut NO X Budget Program”), as of May 1, 2009, and repeal of RCSA section 22a-174-22b, “The Connecticut Post-2002 NO X Budget Program” (herein called the “Connecticut NO X SIP Call trading program”), as of May 1, 2010. In its SIP revision, Connecticut would meet CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units (EGUs) to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade program addressing NO X ozone-season emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the Connecticut SIP as revised will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. Any final action approving the SIP will be taken by the Regional Administrator for Region 1. As a consequence of the SIP Approval, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIP concerning NO X ozone-season emissions for Connecticut. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.386. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIP for Connecticut is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIP was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Connecticut. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIP. Thus, EPA will not have the option of maintaining the FIP following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIP.