Background:Pursuant to section 1512 of the savings clause in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, Section 1512, 116 Stat. 2310 (November 25, 2002), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components and offices have relied on preexisting Privacy Act systems of records notices for the collection and maintenance of records that concern general legal records.

As part of its efforts to streamline and consolidate its Privacy Act records systems, DHS is establishing a new agency-wide system of records under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) for DHS general legal records. This will ensure that all components of DHS follow the same privacy rules for collecting and handling general legal records.

In this notice of proposed rulemaking, DHS now is proposing to exempt General Legal Records, in part, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.

The Privacy Act embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses, and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. Individuals may request their own records that are maintained in a system of records in the possession or under the control of DHS by complying with DHS Privacy Act regulations, 6 CFR part 5.

The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in theFederal Registera description of the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency recordkeeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist individuals in finding such files within the agency.

The Privacy Act allows Government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for General Legal Records. Some information in General Legal Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence activities, and protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to Section 3056 and 3056A of Title 18. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS' ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; to safeguard classified information; and to safeguard records in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to Section 3056 and 3056A of Title 18. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

The exemptions proposed here are standard law enforcement and national security exemptions exercised by a large number of Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.

A notice of system of records for General Legal Records is also published in this issue of theFederal Register.

Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, carriers, and intermediate handlers. Regulations established under the AWA are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1 and 2, and 9 CFR part 3 contains standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals covered by the AWA. Part 3 consists of subparts A through E, which contain specific standards for dogs and cats, guinea pigs and hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates, and marine mammals, respectively, and subpart F, which sets forth general standards for warmblooded animals not otherwise specified.

The only requirement for contingency planning by licensees and registrants currently in the regulations is located in § 3.101(b), which covers water and power supply requirements at facilities housing marine mammals. Specifically, this section requires facilities to submit written contingency plans to the Deputy Administrator of Animal Care (AC) regarding emergency sources of water and electric power should primary sources fail. Among other things, the plans must include evacuation plans in the event of a disaster and a description of backup systems and/or arrangements for relocating marine mammals requiring artificially cooled or heated water.

Following the events experienced during the 2005 hurricane season, a Federal document, “The Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned,” which can be found on the Internet athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/,was published that highlighted the need for planning to minimize the impact of disasters. AC's experience indicates that, although contingency planning would benefit the health and welfare of animals covered by the AWA, at least some entities responsible for regulated animals have not undertaken such planning. Therefore, we believe all licensees and registrants should be required to develop a contingency plan for all animals regulated under the AWA in an effort to better prepare for potential disasters. We are proposing to add requirements for contingency plans, and training of personnel regarding their roles and responsibilities, to a new § 2.38(l) for research facilities and to a new § 2.134 for dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers. For marine mammal facilities, these proposed requirements would be in addition to the requirements of § 3.101(b) mentioned above.

The regulations in current § 2.38(i) allow a person or premises to be designated as a recognized animal site for holding animals in lieu of a research facility, if the research facility obtains prior approval of the AC Regional Director. Likewise, the regulations in § 2.102 allow a person or premises to be designated as a recognized animal site for holding animals in lieu of a dealer, exhibitor, or intermediate handler if the dealer, exhibitor, or intermediate handler obtains prior approval of the AC Regional Director. We would also amend these provisions to require that any site so designated either be directly included in the contingency plan of the research facility, dealer, exhibitor, or intermediate handler or develop its own contingency plan in accordance with the regulations for research facilities, dealers, exhibitors, or intermediate handlers.

Due to the fact that the individual circumstances for facilities may be different (e.g., holding exotic animals versus pet animals, being situated in a State with a cold climate versus a temperate climate, etc.), it is difficult to go into specific detail as to what elements must be included in all contingency plans. However, we are proposing a set of general criteria to which contingency plans would have to adhere. These criteria would require licensees and registrants to develop contingency plans that:

• Identify situations the facility might experience that would trigger the need for a contingency plan, including emergencies such as electrical outages, faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal escapes, as well as natural disasters the facility is most likely to experience. Listings of areas most at risk for specific natural disasters can be found on the U.S. Geological Survey Web site athttp://www.usgs.gov/hazardsor on the Weather Channel Web site athttp://www.weather.com/ready/?from=secondarynav.

• Outline specific tasks required to be carried out in response to the identified emergencies including, but not limited to, detailed animal evacuation instructions or shelter-in-place instructions and provisions for providing backup sources of food and water as well as sanitation, ventilation, bedding, veterinary care, etc.

• Identify a chain of command and who (by name or by position title) will be responsible for fulfilling these tasks.

• Address how response and recovery will be handled in terms of materials, resources, and training needed.

We are also considering the development of a guidance document (or other means) to provide examples of elements that may be included in contingency plans. We welcome public comment on Web sites, articles, or other sources that may be used to develop such guidance, in addition to suggestions as to what elements should be included as examples for an adequate contingency plan. We would retain the specific requirements in § 3.101(b) that are applicable to marine mammals.

We are further proposing that the plans be made available to APHIS upon request and, in the case of research facilities, to any funding Federal agency representatives. Contingency plans would have to be in place 180 days after any final rule following this proposal became effective and would have to be reviewed by the research facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier on at least an annual basis. Training of personnel would have to take place within 60 days following the adoption of a contingency plan by the research facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier. Employees hired within 30 days or less after adoption of the contingency plan would be included in the training period taking place within 60 days following adoption of the contingency plan. For employees hired more than 30 days after adoption of the contingency plan, training would have to be conducted within 30 days of their start date. Training of personnel could be developed and offered by the research facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier or provided by an outside entity.

Each research facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier would be expected to review its contingency plan on at least an annual basis to ensure their plan adequately addresses the four criteria listed above. For licensees and registrants who travel with animals or have multiple sites where animals are maintained, their contingency plans would have to address potential hazards for all areas where the animals are maintained for regulated purposes. Any changes to a contingency plan resulting from the annual review would have to be communicated to employees through training, which would have to be conducted within 30 days of making the changes. The plan would also be reviewed by APHIS personnel as a part of the routine inspection process (similar to the process for our review of dog exercise and nonhuman primate environment enhancement plans).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. This rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

For this proposed rule, we have prepared an economic analysis, which is summarized below. The analysis includes an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that considers the potential economic effects of the proposed rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive Order 12866. The full economic analysis may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (seeADDRESSESabove for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov). The full analysis may also be obtained from the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Lack of disaster preparedness can leave businesses and organizations and the animals in their care vulnerable, as was the case in the southern United States in 2005. The devastating impact of the 2005 hurricane season, in particular the many animals that were stranded and died in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, underscores the need for contingency planning for all animals covered under the Animal Welfare Act. Regulated animal populations, in addition to non-regulated animal populations, suffered as a result of the hurricane. In one particular instance, 90 percent of the animals left in a facility after personnel were evacuated either died or had to be humanely euthanized.

In 2004, USDA's Animal Care reported 1,101,958 animals, including dogs, cats, guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, hamsters, and rabbits, were used by registered research facilities (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml). This does not include regulated animals in zoos and other types of facilities. This high number of animals used by research facilities illustrates the need for contingency plans to protect animals and mitigate impacts of natural and manmade disasters.

Currently, only facilities that house marine mammals are required under the regulations to develop contingency plans. The proposed rule would require that all licensees and registrants, of which there are more than 10,000, develop and document contingency plans for all other animals covered under the Act. In addition, training and familiarization with these plans would have to be provided to all facility employees.

The proposed requirements may affect research facilities, dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers that fall into nine categories of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). For the purposes of this analysis, the potentially affected entities are classified within the following industries: All Other Animal Production (NAICS 112990), Pet and Pet Supplies Stores (NAICS 453910),1 Schedule Freight Transport (NAICS 48112), Research and Development in Physical Engineering and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710), Veterinary Services (NAICS 541940), Zoos and Botanical Gardens (NAICS 712130), Nature Park and Other Similar Institutions (NAICS 712190), Environment Conservation and Wildlife Organizations (NAICS 813312), and Pet Care Services (NAICS 812910). Data are unavailable on the size of the specific entities, but we may assume that the majority of the establishments that would be affected by the rule are small, based on the industry estimates obtained from the Economic Census and the Census of Agriculture.

In terms of economic impacts, we anticipate that the proposed changes would only impose minimal costs to develop and document the contingency plans and provide employee training. This is because the cost of training for facility personnel is expected to vary depending on the type and size of business and many of the larger facilities, in particular, already have contingency plans in place. In addition, there is a wealth of information available from various Federal and State agencies and private organizations that addresses animal disaster planning. A list of resources that may aid in the development and implementation of contingency plans is included in the full economic analysis.

We do not have any estimates of the costs of implementing contingency plans for facilities that do not already have contingency plans in place, such as the costs of equipment or materials that may be needed. We welcome public comment on the types of equipment or materials that may be needed to implement contingency plans and the costs of this equipment or materials.

One alternative to the rule would be to require that all licensees and registrants submit their contingency plans to APHIS for review, as is required for the marine mammal facilities. There are more than 10,000 licensees and registrants that would be submitting plans for review under this alternative, which we expect would take an enormous amount of resources for the Agency to process, review, and store. Another alternative would be to retain the status quo, i.e., not amend the regulations to require regulated entities other than marine mammal facilities to prepare contingency plans. However, we believe that this alternative wouldnot provide adequate protection for the general public and the animals in these facilities. Thus, the approach we are proposing in this document, which would ensure that contingency plans are developed and can be reviewed by APHIS during scheduled inspection visits or at other times, is preferred.

Preparedness for disasters can reduce harm caused to animals and loss of life. The devastating impact of the 2005 hurricane season underscores the need for contingency planning for all animals covered under the Animal Welfare Act. Currently, only facilities that house marine mammals are required under 9 CFR 3.101 to develop contingency plans. The proposed rule would require that all licensees and registrants develop and document contingency plans for all other animals covered under the Act. In addition, training and familiarization with these plans would be provided to all facility employees. The licensees and registrants fall into various categories of the North American Industry Classification System and while no economic data are available on business size for the specific entities, we may assume the majority of the establishments are small, based on the industry estimates obtained from the Economic Census and the Census of Agriculture. In terms of economic impacts, we anticipate that the proposed rule would only impose minimal costs to develop and document the contingency plans and provide employee training. The cost of training for facility personnel is expected to vary depending on the type and size of business. Many of the larger facilities, in particular, already have contingency plans in place. Overall, we do not anticipate a substantial economic impact on the entities affected. Nevertheless, APHIS welcomes public comment on the proposed rule's possible impacts, including the cost of implementing contingency plans.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0159. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2006-0159, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule.

The proposed rule would amend the current regulations and would require all licensees and registrants, which include research facilities, dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers, to develop and document contingency plans for the handling of animals during all emergencies or disasters.

These criteria would require licensees and registrants to develop contingency plans that:

• Identify situations the facility might experience that would trigger the need for a contingency plan, including emergencies such as electrical outages, faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal escapes, as well as natural disasters the facility is most likely to experience.

• Outline specific tasks required to be carried out in response to the identified emergencies or disasters including, but not limited to, detailed animal evacuation instructions or shelter-in-place instructions and provisions for providing backup sources of food and water as well as sanitation, ventilation, bedding, veterinary care, etc.

• Identify a chain of command and who (by name or by position title) will be responsible for fulfilling these tasks.

• Address how response and recovery will be handled in terms of materials, resources, and training needed.

We are further proposing that the plans be made available to APHIS upon request and, in the case of research facilities, to any funding Federal agency representatives. Contingency plans would have to be in place 180 days after any final rule following this proposal became effective and would have to be reviewed by the research facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier on at least an annual basis.

We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden:Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 4 to 6 hours (average 5 hours) per response.

Respondents:Dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, carriers and intermediate handlers.

Estimated annual number of respondents:10,351.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:1.

Estimated annual number of responses:10,351.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents:51,755 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent toE-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 2 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed underADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0952; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-49-AD” in the subject line of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including, if provided, 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 theFederal Registerpublished on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

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

On April 3, 2002, we issued AD 2002-07-12, Amendment 39-12707 (67 FR 17279, April 10, 2002), to require revisions to the ALS of the manufacturer's ICA for GE CF6-80A, CF6-80C2, and CF6-80E1 series turbofan engines to include required enhanced inspection of selected critical life-limited parts at each piece-part exposure.

Since the issuance of that AD, an FAA study of in-service events involving uncontained failures of critical rotating engine parts has indicated the need for additional mandatory inspections. The mandatory inspections are needed to identify those critical rotating parts with conditions, which if allowed to continue in service, could result in uncontained engine failures. This proposal would require revisions to the CF6-80A, CF6-80C2, and CF6-80E1 series engines ALS sections of the manufacturer's manuals and an air carrier's approved continuous airworthiness maintenance program to incorporate additional inspection requirements.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 2002-07-12 to add additional inspections for certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) components, and to update certain Engine Manual Inspection Task and or Sub Task Number references. These inspections would be required at each piece-part opportunity. For reference, this proposed AD carries forward the requirements from AD 2002-07-12. Also for reference, the parts added to the table in the compliance section of this AD are identified by an asterisk (*) that precedes the part nomenclature. Also for reference, parts that have an Engine Manual Inspection Task and or Sub Task Number reference updated in the table in the compliance section of this AD, are identified by two asterisks (**) that precede the part nomenclature.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 315 CF6-80A series engines and 926 CF6-80C2 series engines installed on airplanes of U.S.registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per CF6-80A series engine and about 2 work-hours per CF6-80C2 series engine to do the proposed additional inspections and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. The total cost of the new inspections per CF6-80A series engine would be about $400. The total cost of the new inspections per CF6-80C2 series engine would be about $160. We estimate that there will be about 42 shop visits per year for CF6-80A series engines, and about 128 shop visits per year for CF6-80C2 series engines that result in piece-part-exposure of the added affected components. Therefore, we estimate the total annual cost for the additional inspections to be $37,280.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See theADDRESSESsection for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-1115; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-134-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, tohttp://www.regulations.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 aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-24, dated July 3, 2008 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

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

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

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

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-24-012, Revision B, dated July 25, 2007. 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 159 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 102 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $7,646 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,513,154, or $15,806 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include the docket number, “FAA-2008-1120; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-064-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, tohttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing eachsubstantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD.

Reports of foreign material entering the cabin area during an overturn skid on Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) AT-301 and AT-401 series airplanes caused us to issue AD 2002-25-09, Amendment 39-12985 (67 FR 78156, December 23, 2002). AD 2002-25-09 required you to install overturn skid plate, part number (P/N) 11411-1-500 or an FAA-approved equivalent P/N. The manufacturer incorporated skid plates in some production models including Models AT-401B, AT-402B, AT-502B, AT-602, and AT-802A airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2002-25-09, we received a report of the bolts breaking in an overturn accident where they attach the forward end of the original design overturn skid plate to the airframe. This allowed the skid plate to rotate around the rear attach point and the forward end of the plate to enter the cockpit area. This report caused us to issue AD 2008-11-17, Amendment 39-15540 (73 FR 31351, June 2, 2008). AD 2008-11-17 currently retains the actions of AD 2002-25-09 and requires you to install a modification kit if certain overturn skid plates are already installed.

Since we issued AD 2008-11-17, the manufacturer has notified us that Model AT-401B airplanes also require a modification to the overturn skid plane. Consequently, this proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 2008-11-17 and add the requirement to modify the overturn skid plate installed on Model AT-401B airplanes.

We are proposing this AD to prevent the front and rear connections of the overturn skid plate to the airplane from breaking, which could allow foreign debris to enter the cockpit during an airplane overturn. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to pilot injury.

We have reviewed Snow Engineering Company Service Letter #97, Revised September 19, 2008.

The service information describes procedures for:

• Modifying the overturn skid plate by enlarging the mounting holes and replacing existing clamps and hardware on airplanes with the overturn skid plate installed; and

• Installing the overturn skid plate for airplanes that do not have the overturn skid plate currently installed.

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 2008-11-17 with a new AD that would retain the actions of AD 2008-11-17 and add the requirement to modify the overturn skid plate installed on Model AT-401B airplanes. 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 1,309 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

In determining the total cost on U.S. operators, we presume all airplanes in the U.S. fleet have an overturn skid plate installed (as required by AD 2002-25-09) and the only cost is to incorporate the modification kit P/N 11411-1-501. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed modification of installing the overturn skid plate modification kit P/N 11411-1-501 to those planes that currently have the overturn skid plate installed:

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.

You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located at the street address stated in theADDRESSESsection. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44715, Controlling aircraft noise and sonic boom. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to measure and abate aircraft noise. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority since it would require certain operators to carry on board documentation listing the noise characteristics of the aircraft. These characteristics are already contained in the aircraft flight manual and approved as part of the aircraft's airworthiness certification and compliance with 14 CFR part 36.

Current U.S. regulations require that all U.S. aircraft comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. Part of that certification includes the noise levels that were obtained during certification testing. Section 36.1501 requires that these certification noise levels be included in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM). These manuals must be approved by the FAA. Part 36 also contains two sections (36.1581 and 36.1583) that describe the specific noise certification data to be included in an FAA-approved AFM/RFM. However, there is no specific requirement for the entire FAA-approved AFM to be carried on board an aircraft.

For U.S. air carriers operating under part 121, a carrier is allowed to create an Aircraft Operations Manual (AOM) or a Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) as an alternative to the AFM to be carried on board the aircraft. That manual typically contains only the aircraft limitations and performance information from the FAA-approved AFM. The air carriers' flight, maintenance, and ground crews would normally use these manuals. The AOM or FCOM may or may not contain the noise characteristics pages from the FAA-approved AFM, depending on the operator's needs and the manual's organization.

Several years ago, the FAA became aware of instances in which U.S. aircraft were detained at foreign airports when the noise status of the airplane was questioned. In many cases, the flightcrew had not been able to provide relevant information either because the AOM/FCOM did not contain such information, or because the information was not aggregated in one location in the on-board manual. Some foreign authorities have asked U.S. flightcrews to either produce a noise certificate or show the noise status of the airplane from on-board documents.

The issue of noise documentation has been addressed by the Certificate Task Group (CTG) of the ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection. In 2001, Noise Technical Working Group 1 of the CTG was tasked with examining the implementation of Annex 16 noise certification documentation requirements, and the possible international standardization of those documents. The CTG includes the FAA and several representatives of the U.S. aviation industry among its members.

The CTG considered various options for standardization of documents to be carried by aircraft operators. The ICAO member States use a variety of administrative systems, with differing requirements for noise documentation at certification and for designating documents that must be carried on board. The CTG proposed three options designed to accommodate these different practices. These three proposed options were drafted with reference to existing regulatory systems in the various States and incorporated into a new Attachment G to Annex 16 Amendment 8. The ICAO adopted Amendment 8 of Annex 16, Volume 1 on February 23, 2005, and it became effective on November 24, 2005. Section 1.4 of Annex 16 now requires that “documents attesting noise certification shall be approved by the State of Registry and required by that State to be carried on the aircraft.” Attachment G to Amendment 8 provides the following three options for satisfying the certification documentation requirements of sections 1.4 and 1.5.

1. A stand-alone State-issued noise certificate in which the mandatory information requirements of Annex 16, Volume 1, are contained in a single document.

2. Two complementary documents, one of which may be the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or the Airline Operations Manual (AOM).

3. Three complementary documents.

Option 2 was designed to accommodate the system in effect in the United States. One of the documents contemplated under this option was an aircraft's airworthiness certificate, since it is issued only when an aircraft has demonstrated compliance with part 36. However, since U.S. airworthiness certificates do not contain any noise information, the second document would contain the noise certification data that is already required to be in the AFM/RFM.

Currently, no specific format exists for the noise information required to be in the AFM/RFM. In practice, the information may be scattered over several pages and not easily located. Further, since noise data is not required for inclusion in those parts of the manual carried on board, flightcrews may not be familiar with or even have access to this information.

Before Amendment 8 was adopted in 2005, the noise documentation section of Annex 16 was contained in a note and considered advisory material. To address the difficulties that U.S. carriers had experienced, the FAA published a draft notice of availability of proposed Advisory Circular, entitled “Guidance on Aircraft Noise Certification Documents for International Flights” (70 FR 60127, October 14, 2005). That AC included an optional form on which operators leaving the United States could compile the noise certification data envisioned by the working group.

With the adoption of Amendment 8 and the new paragraph 1.4, noise documentation must now be carried on board all U.S. aircraft operating outside the United States in order to comply with ICAO, Annex 16, Volume I. We have determined that a regulatory change to require the carriage of noise certification documents is necessary. We have chosen to propose this as an operating requirement rather than a certification requirement, because the information already exists in operators' manuals and does not affect the certification basis of an airplane. As an operating rule, it will not affect operators who do not leave the United States.

We are proposing to amend part 91 to add a new paragraph in section 91.703 requiring operators that fly outside the United States using aircraft subject to ICAO Annex 161 to carry aircraft noise certification information onboard the aircraft.

While the regulatory amendment is simple, we are seeking comment on the proposed format of the documentation and the best place to have it located on board the aircraft.

Air carriers and other affected operators who leave the country are encouraged to comment on the proposed regulation, and suggest workable alternatives that could be applied to all operators who fly outside the United States.

We are including in this proposal a draft aircraft noise documentation form. We anticipate that the information needed to complete the form will be transferred by the operator from the approved flight manual foreachof an operator's aircraft. The form included in this proposal is nearly identical to the one we published in the draft Advisory Circular, and includes all of the information that was chosen by Working Group 1 as necessary to comply with the ICAO requirement. We have attempted to maintain the same format in an effort to make the form readily recognizable to foreign authorities. Unless there is compelling reason to do so, we do not plan on altering the placement of information on the form. The FAA will seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget to maintain it as an official form that we recommend be carried on board.

We would especially like to hear from those operators that chose to complete the form as it was published in the draft AC, including where they carry the form, how flightcrews are informed of its location, and whether it has been requested in foreign operations.

Use of this form is optional. An operator may choose to use the appropriate flight manual pages that contain the required noise data as its means of compliance with the documentation requirements of Annex 16. Alternatively, a carrier could develop its own documentation that contains the required noise data. We caution operators that do not use the FAA form to ensure that the materials they carry comply with the requirements of Annex 16, Volume I, sections 1.4 and 1.5.

We seek comment on the best place for the information, if compiled into the recommended form or other single document, to be located on board the aircraft. If it is to be carried on board as part of the AFM/RFM/AOM/FCOM, should it have its own tabbed section, be an Appendix, or be incorporated into another already familiar section? Is there a better place for a document to be located that would be accessible to the flightcrew and common to all operators? We will review the comments and include our recommendations in the final rule.

The Working Group 1 discussions included a suggestion to the FAA that we issue noise certificates as our means of compliance. While it seems a simpler solution, the FAA does not have the legal authority to issue noise certificates as other ICAO countries do.

In a related issue, the form originally developed by Working Group 1 includes an approval by a Member State's certificating authority, such as the FAA in the United States. The FAA will not be approving the recommended form that contains the information. We interpret that action to be legally indistinguishable from issuing a noise certificate. Instead, as the draft form indicates, the information contained on the page comes from an FAA-approved flight manual. The FAA-approved noise certification data is part of the procedures for operating aircraft and not considered a limitation or restriction. The FAA has found that transfer of the FAA-approved noise data satisfies the ICAO requirement that the information on board “be approved by the State of Registry.” Each operator carries the burden of a one-time correct transfer of the information for each of its aircraft.

Following is a draft of the form that we recommend operators use in complying with this regulation. We anticipate that this form will be available online from the FAA Web site; its particular location on the site has not been decided, but is open for comment on accessibility. Following the form is a description of the material that goes in each section, adapted from the ICAO instructions.

Use of this form, when properly completed and carried on board, along with an airplane's airworthiness certificate, would demonstrate compliance with the proposed regulation and with ICAO Annex 16, Volume I, Part II Chapter 1, paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5. The information on this form is not new, and is in each operator's FAA-approved flight manual for each aircraft.

The boxes in this form are numbered to maintain similarity with the ICAO version. The descriptions of the information to be entered in boxes 1-2 and 4-20 are not to be altered. Box 3 is optional for use by the operator.

1. United States of America (ICAO-required name of member State).

2. Title (Aircraft Noise Certification Information), plus the name of the operator and contact information.

3. Document number (optional for operator's use).

4. The nationality or common mark and registration marks (in the United States, N-number).

5. The aircraft manufacturer and manufacturer's designation of the aircraft (model and series, as appropriate).

6. The aircraft serial number.

7. The type and model of the subject aircraft's engine(s) (for identification and verification of the aircraft configuration).

8. For propeller-driven airplanes, the propeller type and model.

9. The maximum takeoff mass and unit. The primary U.S. unit differs from the international unit: The appropriate conversion factor can be found in ICAO Annex 5. To avoid confusion, a U.S. operator may choose to record weight/mass in both English and metric units. An example of a conversion change from pounds to kilograms is shown below:

10. The maximum landing mass and unit. To avoid confusion, a U.S. operator may choose to record weight/mass in both English and metric units. See conversion example above.

11. The Part 36 noise stage of the certificated aircraft. The terminology of aircraft certification classification in the United States is “Stage” rather than “Chapter” as used in Annex 16. The U.S. term is recognized by ICAO and is not considered a difference from Annex 16. Note that the term “Stage” is not applicable to airplanes certificated under 14 CFR part 36, Subpart F.

12. Any modifications to the aircraft incorporated for compliance with applicable noise certification standards. This item should include any modifications to the basic aircraft described in items 7 and 8.

13. The lateral/full-power noise level, as certificated. Operators of U.S.-registered aircraft must use the 14 CFR part 36 certificated noise levels, expressed as Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB).Note:For 14 CFR part 36, appendix B, certifications that predate Amendment 36-24 use the term “sideline” instead of “lateral.”

14. The approach noise level, as certificated. Operators of U.S.-registered aircraft must use the 14 CFR part 36, appendices B or H certificated noise levels, expressed as EPNdB.

15. The flyover noise level, as certificated. Operators of U.S.-registered aircraft must use the 14 CFR part 36 certificated noise levels, expressed as EPNdB. For rotorcraft, certificated under appendices H or J, noise levels are expressed as either EPNdB or A-weighted Sound Exposure Level (dBA SEL), respectively. (Note:For 14 CFR part 36, appendix B certifications that predate Amendment 36-24 use the term “takeoff” instead of “flyover.”)

16. The overflight noise level, as certificated. Operators of U.S.-registered aircraft must include the 14 CFR part 36 certificated noise levels. For small airplanes, certificated under appendix F, noise levels are expressed as maximum A-weighted sound level (dBA). For rotorcraft, certificated under appendices H or J, noise levels are expressed as either EPNdB or A-weighted SEL (dBA SEL), respectively. Note: The terminology describing this noise level in 14 CFR part 36 is “flyover” rather than “overflight” as used in Annex 16.

17. The takeoff noise level, as certificated. Operators of U.S.-registered aircraft must use the 14 CFR part 36, appendices G and H certificated noise levels as described in item 16.

18. A statement that the individual aircraft complies with the applicable noise requirements of the U.S. regulations applicable to its type and size.

19. The date on which the noise certification document was created by the operator.

20. The signature of the official of the operator attesting to the accuracy of the information in the FAA Form.

Listing multiple aircraft with similar characteristics on the same document will not be allowed. Only the data for the single aircraft listed in the serial number and registration sections is to be listed on this form. Failure to carry the correct information, regardless of form, would be a violation of the regulation.

This proposal contains the following new information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the information requirements associated with this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for its review.

Title:Aircraft Noise Certification Documents For International Operations.

Summary:This proposal would add a new paragraph in § 91.703 requiring operators that fly outside the United States, using aircraft subject to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Annex 16, to carry aircraft noise certification information on board the aircraft. It would ensure that U.S. operators have the noise certification information required to comply with CIAO Annex 16, Volume I, Amendment 8 when flying outside the United States.

Use of:This proposed rule would require operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft flying outside the United States to carry aircraft noise certification information on board the aircraft. This proposed rule is needed to ensure compliance with ICAO, Annex 16, Volume 1, Amendment 8 that requires certain noise information be carried on board aircraft that fly outside their state of registry. The proposed rule would require that this information be easily accessible to the flight crew and presentable upon request to the appropriate foreign officials.

Respondents (including number of):The likely respondents to this proposed information requirement are operators of U.S.-registered airplanes that fly outside the United States.

Frequency:This form would be completed one time for each aircraft. Thus, the annual frequency of information requirement is a one-time initial response for each aircraft currently owned by the operator, then once per new aircraft acquired or modified by an operator.

Annual Burden Estimate:This proposal would result in an annual recordkeeping and reporting burden as follows:

The cost of the proposed rule per affected airplane was derived by multiplying the technical writer's wage rate of $29.95 per hour by 0.25 hours required to complete the form, and adding to that the chief pilot's wage rate of $79.48 per hour multiplied by 0.17 hours required to review and sign the form. Thus, compliance with thisregulation would result in a per-airplane cost of $21. As a result, the initial cost of the proposed rule would be $21 per aircraft times 5,066 aircraft, for a total of $106,386.

The agency is soliciting comments to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information collection requirement by December 22, 2008, and should direct them to the address listed in theADDRESSESsection at the end of this preamble. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20053.

According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection will be published in theFederal Register, after the Office of Management and Budget approves it.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the FAA policy is to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and is proposing this regulation as a means of compliance with Annex 16 regarding noise documentation carried on board aircraft that leave the United States.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). However, for regulations with an expected minimal impact, the above-specified analyses are not required.

The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that the proposal or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

This proposed rule would require operators of U.S. registered civil aircraft flying outside the United States subject to ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1, Amendment 8, to carry aircraft noise certification data on board the aircraft. Operators may comply with the proposed rule by transferring the data from the Airplane Flight Manual to a suggested form included in this rulemaking. Operators may also choose to carry the required information in a different format. The proposed rule would require that this information be easily accessible to the flight crew and presentable upon request to the appropriate officials.

The FAA was unable to determine the exact number of U.S. registered aircraft that would be subject to this proposed rule. Therefore, the FAA used (as an overestimate) the total number of passenger jet and cargo jet aircraft registered to U.S. mainline carriers in its cost computations. Based on the FAA Aerospace Forecast, there are a total of 5,066 aircraft currently registered to U.S. mainline air carriers (1,034 cargo aircraft3 and 4,032 passenger jet aircraft4 ).

For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that operators would choose to comply with the proposed rule by using the provided recommended form. This form would be completed one time for each aircraft. We estimate that completion of the form would require 15 minutes of a technical writer's time and 10 minutes of a chief pilot's or chief engineer's time. The average wage rate for a technical writer is $29.95 per hour5 after accounting for fringe benefits. The average wage rate for a chief pilot or chief engineer is estimated at $79.48 per hour6 after accounting for fringe benefits.

The cost of the proposed rule per affected airplane was derived by multiplying the technical writer's wage rate of $29.95 per hour by 0.25 hours required to complete the form, and adding to that the chief pilot's wage rate of $79.48 per hour multiplied by 0.17 hours required to review and sign the form. Thus, compliance with this regulation would result in a per-airplane cost of $21. As a result, the initial cost of the proposed rule would be $21 per aircraft times 5,066 aircraft, for a total of $106,386. Operators may subsequently decide to purchase or modify aircraft affected by the proposed rule. If they do so, operators would incur an extra cost of $21 per additional airplane to bring it into compliance with ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1, Amendment 8.

This proposed rule would ensure that U.S. aircraft that fly abroad are in compliance with ICAO Annex 16, Amendment 8. Operators would benefit from the proposed rule by having the proper documentation readily available for foreign authorities, avoiding delays and detainment when noise certification status is questioned. The FAA believes that the negligible cost of compliance with this rule is outweighed by the benefit of compliance with the international standard.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

This proposed rule would ensure that U.S. operators have consistent noise certification information on board when they fly outside the United States. This rule is needed to ensure compliance with the ICAO Annex 16 that requires certain noise information be carried on board. Under the proposed rule, each small entity would incur a one-time cost of $21 per aircraft currently in its fleet. Operators may subsequently decide to purchase or modify aircraft affected by the proposed rule; if they do so, they would incur an extra cost of $21 per airplane to comply. The FAA does not consider this a significant cost. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would affect only those U.S. operators that conduct international operations. The expected outcome of this proposed rule will be a minimal impact on affected operators with the net benefits of ICAO compliance.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.

This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate.

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in theFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk orCD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a note in the docket that we have received it. If wereceive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

You can get an electronic copy of rulemakingdocuments using the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page athttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page athttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking.

You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in paragraph (1).

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act,1 the Commission is proposing to approve three revised Reliability Standards concerning Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance (FAC) that were developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. The three revised Reliability Standards, designated by NERC as FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2, set requirements for the development and communication of system operating limits of the Bulk-Power System for use in the planning and operation horizons.2

2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.3

3. On November 15, 2006, NERC filed 20 revised Reliability Standards and three version one FAC Reliability Standards for Commission approval. The Commission addressed the 20 revised Reliability Standards in OrderNo. 6934 and established a separate rulemaking proceeding to address the three version one FAC Reliability Standards, which require planning authorities and reliability coordinators to establish methodologies to determine system operating limits (SOLs) for the Bulk-Power System in the planning and operation horizons. The Commission approved the version one FAC Reliability Standards in Order No. 705 and directed the ERO to address certain issues.5

4. On June 30, 2008, in response to the Commission's directives in Order No. 705, NERC submitted for Commission approval three revised FAC Reliability Standards:6 FAC-010-2—System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon, FAC-011-2—System Operating Limits Methodology for the Operations Horizon, and FAC-014-2—Establish and Communicate System Operating Limits. NERC requests that FAC-010-2 be made effective on July 1, 2008, FAC-011-2 on October 1, 2008, and FAC-014-2 on January 1, 2009, consistent with the implementation dates of version one of these Reliability Standards.

5. As discussed below, NERC's proposed revisions to the FAC Reliability Standards preliminarily appear to be just and reasonable and consistent with our direction in Order No. 705. The Commission therefore proposes to accept FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2, and FAC-014-2 effective the latter of the effective date of the final rule in this docket or NERC's proposed effective dates.7

6. Requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-1 provided that the system's response to a single contingency may include,inter alia,“[i]nterruption of other network customers, only if the system has already been adjusted, or is being adjusted, following at least one prior outage, or, if the real-time operating conditions are more adverse than anticipated in the corresponding studies,e.g., load greater than studied.” NERC asserted that a significant gap between actual and studied conditions (such as a large error in load forecast) could be treated as though it were a contingency under the version 1 of FAC-011-1 Reliability Standard.

7. In Order No. 705, the Commission disagreed with NERC's reading of FAC-011-1, sub-Requirement R2.3.2 and interpretation of the phrase “load greater than studied.”8 However, the Commission found that the meaning of Requirement R2.3 and sub-Requirement R2.3.2 was not otherwise unclear. The Commission therefore approved FAC-011-1, but directed the ERO to revise the Reliability Standard through the Reliability Standards development process. The Commission suggested that NERC could address the Commission's concern by deleting the phrase, “e.g., load greater than studied.”

8. NERC proposes to address the Commission's concern with the phrase “load greater than studied” by revising FAC-011-1 to remove the phrase from Requirement R2.3.2. NERC states that because the phrase served as an example, its removal does not materially change the requirement or the Reliability Standard. NERC's proposed FAC-011-2 therefore omits the relevant phrase.

9. The Commission proposes to approve NERC's proposed removal of the phrase “e.g., load greater than studied” from Requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-2. NERC's revision in FAC-011-2 appears reasonable and does not appear to change or conflict with the stated requirements set forth in the version one Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 705. NERC's revision therefore appears just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.

10. While NERC describes the phrase “load greater than studied” as an example and states that its removal does not materially change the requirement, the Commission notes that Order No. 705 found that the operating conditions referred to in sub-Requirement R2.3.2 are exacerbating circumstances that are distinct from the actual contingency to be addressed that is referred to in Requirement R2.3. We stated that this did not support treating “load greater than studied” as a contingency.9 As we stated in Order No. 705, correcting for load forecast error is not accomplished by treating the error as a contingency, but is addressed under other Reliability Standards.10

11. With the version one FAC Reliability Standards, NERC proposed to add the term “Cascading Outages” to its glossary. In Order No. 705, the Commission noted that, although the glossary did not include a definition of Cascading Outages, it included an approved definition of Cascading, which seemed to describe the same concept. The Commission remanded NERC's proposed definition of Cascading Outages because NERC did not describe either the need for two definitions that seem to address the same matter or the variations between the two. The Commission also raised specific concerns with NERC's proposed definition of Cascading Outages. However, the Commission allowed NERC to file a revised definition that addresses the Commission's concerns.

12. NERC states that it is not proposing a revised definition of Cascading Outage. Instead, NERC proposes to address the Commission's concern by removing the term from the proposed FAC Reliability Standards. NERC states that its Board of Trustees withdrew its approval of the term at its February 12, 2008 meeting. NERC further states that the drafting team reviewed the term Cascading Outage relative to the term Cascading, a term in the approved NERC Glossary of Terms and indicated there were no intended material differences in the terms. NERC therefore removed the term Cascading Outage from the proposed FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 Reliability Standards and replaced with it with the term Cascading.

13. The Commission proposes to approve NERC's proposed removal of the term Cascading Outage from its FAC Reliability Standards. NERC's proposed revisions to FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 appear reasonable and do not appear to change or conflict with the stated requirements set forth in the version oneReliability Standards approved in Order No. 705. NERC's revisions therefore appear just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.

14. Requirement R2.3 of FAC-010-1 provided that the system's response to a single contingency may include,inter alia,“planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers connected to or supplied by the Faulted Facility or by the affected area.”11 In response to a question raised by the Commission, NERC clarified that the provision in FAC-010-1, Requirement R2.3 is limited to loss of load that is directly connected to the facilities removed from service as a direct result of the contingency,i.e., consequential load loss.

15. In Order No. 705, the Commission reiterated its holding that addressed similar language on loss of load in Order No. 693, regarding Reliability Standard TPL-002-0. In Order No. 693, the Commission noted that “allowing for the 30 minute system adjustment period, the system must be capable of withstanding an N-1 contingency, with load shedding available to system operators as a measure of last resort to prevent cascading failures.”12 Order No. 693 directed the ERO to clarify the planning Reliability Standard TPL-002-0 accordingly. The Commission reached the same conclusion in Order No. 705. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved Reliability Standard FAC-010-1, Requirement R2.3 and directed the ERO to ensure that the clarification developed in response to Order No. 693 is made to the FAC Reliability Standards as well.13

16. NERC suggests that the revisions to the term “loss of consequential load” are best addressed in the modifications being made to the transmission planning (TPL) family of Reliability Standards in its Project 2006-02 Assess Transmission Future Needs and Develop Transmission Plans. NERC reiterates its position that the TPL Reliability Standards define acceptable system performance response and serve as the foundation for the FAC family of Reliability Standards. NERC states that the term “loss of consequential load” is intrinsic to the scope of Project 2006-02. According to NERC, the drafting team has already proposed a definition for the term to be presented for approval for inclusion in NERC's Glossary of Terms.14 NERC states that this approach will provide the clarity needed.

17. The Commission proposes to allow the ERO to address revisions to the term “loss of consequential load” in the modification being made to the TPL Reliability Standards. Such revisions should be consistent with the Commission's prior determinations in Order Nos. 693 and 705.15 The Commission finds that FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 are clearly understood as written and clarified in Order No. 705, including its holding with respect to “loss of consequential load,”16 and that NERC's proposal to deal with “loss of consequential load” in a more-related project is appropriate.

18. In the event of a violation of a Reliability Standard, NERC will establish the initial value range for the corresponding base penalty amount. To do so, NERC will assign a violation risk factor for each requirement of a Reliability Standard that relates to the expected or potential impact of a violation of the requirement on the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. In addition, NERC will define up to four violation severity levels—Lower, Moderate, High and Severe—as measurements for the degree to which the requirement was violated in a specific circumstance.

19. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved 63 of NERC's 72 proposed violation risk factors and directed NERC to file violation severity level assignments before the version one FAC Reliability Standards become effective.17 Subsequently, NERC developed violation severity levels for each requirement of Reliability Standard, as measurements for the degree to which the requirement was violated in a specific circumstance.

20. On June 19, 2008, the Commission issued an order approving the violation severity level assignments filed by NERC for the 83 Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 693.18 In that order, the Commission offered four guidelines for evaluating the validity of the violation severity levels, and ordered a number of reports and further compliance filing to bring the remainder of NERC's violation severity levels into compliance with the Commission's guidelines. The four guidelines are: (1) Violation severity level assignments should not have the unintended consequence of lowering the current level of compliance; (2) violation severity level assignments should ensure uniformity and consistency among all approved Reliability Standards in the determination of penalties; (3) violation severity level assignments should be consistent with the corresponding requirement; and (4) violation severity level assignments should be based on a single violation, not a cumulative number of violations.19 The Commission found that these guidelines will provide a consistent and objective means for assessing,inter alia,the consistency, fairness and potential consequences of violation severity level assignments. The Commission noted that these guidelines were not intended to replace NERC's own guidance classifications, but rather, provide an additional level of analysis to determine the validity of violation severity level assignments.

21. NERC states that it developed a full suite of violation severity levels for FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2. NERC notes that it developed these violation severity levels prior to the issuance of the Violation Severity Level Order.20 NERC requests that the Commission accept its violation severity levels for the version two FAC Reliability Standards even though it has not yet assessed their validity using the four new guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order. NERC states that it is committed to assessing the violation severity levels for the revised FAC Reliability Standards in the six-month compliance filing required by the Violation Severity Level Order.21 NERC did not submit violation risk factors for these version two FAC Reliability Standards.

22. The Commission proposes to approve, with modification, NERC's proposed violation severity levels for FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2. While we appreciate that NERC assigned its proposed violation severity levels before the Commission established the four guidelines for evaluating the validity of the violation severity levels, we find that NERC's proposed violation severity levels would not meet our guidelines. We therefore propose the following modifications to the violation severity levels to form a complete set of violation severity levels in this NOPR. We note that NERC has committed to assessing the violation severity levels in the compliance filing required by the Violation Severity Level Order. Our proposals here do not preclude NERC from including an assessment of its FAC violation severity levels in its six-month evaluation, and we encourage NERC to do so. If, however, NERC does not include an assessment of its FAC violation severity levels in its six-month evaluation, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to submit an assessment of the FAC violation severity levels within six months of the effective date of the Final Rule in this docket.

23. As drafted, some of NERC's proposed violation severity levels do not meet the Commission's guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order. Of the violation severity levels submitted by NERC, FAC-010-2 Requirements R1, R3, R4 and R5; FAC-011-2 Requirement R4; and FAC-014-2 Requirement R5 are consistent with the Commission violation severity level guidelines and only minor edits are proposed for clarity. The Commission therefore proposes to approve modified violation severity levels that are consistent with our guidelines.

24. The Commission is concerned with several of the proposed violation severity levels and proposes modifications. For example, as proposed by NERC, it is difficult to discern which conditions trigger which violation severity level assigned to FAC-010-2 Requirement R4. The Commission therefore proposes to direct the ERO to make modifications to clarify those conditions without changing the substance of the violation severity levels. The Commission also proposes to direct the ERO to modify the violation severity levels assigned to FAC-011-2 Requirement R1 to make them consistent with the violation severity levels proposed for FAC-010-2 Requirement R1. This uniformity will assist in the compliance and enforcement of these standards because it is logical that nearly identical requirements have nearly identical violation severity level structures.

25. NERC submitted violation severity levels for Requirement R2 of FAC-010-2 and Requirement R2 of FAC-011-2. In Order No. 705, the Commission found that Requirement R2 of FAC-010-1 and Requirement R2 of FAC-011-1, without their sub-requirements, include no required performance or outcome.22 As such, no violation severity levels need to be assigned to these requirements. The Commission therefore proposes to delete the proposed violation severity levels for Requirement R2.

26. As proposed by NERC, Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 is assigned a “Severe” violation severity level if the reliability coordinator's methodology for determining SOLs is missing a description ofthree or moreof the sub-requirements ranging from R3.1 to R3.7. At the same time, NERC assigns a “High” violation severity level if the reliability coordinator's methodology for determining SOLs includes a description for all butthreesub-requirements within the same range. Therefore, if a reliability coordinator's methodology for determining SOLs is missing a description of three sub-requirements, it could be assigned both a “High” and a “Severe” violation severity level. To eliminate this overlap, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to assign a “Severe” violation severity level to Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 where the reliability coordinator is missing a description offouror more sub-requirements R3.1 to R3.7 from its methodology for determining SOLs.

27. Requirements R1 through R4 of FAC-014-2 address the development of SOLs and IROLs consistent with the methodologies outlined in FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2. NERC proposes to assign violation severity levels to these requirements based on a quartile division of the total number of inconsistencies between the assigned SOLs and the SOLs that would be produced using the methodologies outlined in FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2. For example, NERC proposes to assign a “Lower” violation severity level where 1 to 25 percent of SOLs are inconsistent with the applicable entity's SOL methodology. The Commission believes that each time a SOL is inconsistent with the applicable entity's SOL methodology, it is a violation of the Reliability Standards. By contrast, NERC's proposed violation severity levels are based on multiple inconsistent SOLs. The Commission's fourth guideline for evaluating violation severity levels makes clear that violation severity level assignments should be based on a single violation, not on a cumulative number of violations. To remedy this deficiency, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to modify its violation severity levels for FAC-014-02 Requirements R1 through R4 based on the percentage of deviation from the SOL methodology for each violation.

28. Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2 requires the planning authority to identify the subset of multiple contingencies (if any), from Reliability Standard TPL-003 that result in stability limits. However, the proposed violation severity levels for Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2 do not identify a situation where the planning authority fails to provide a complete subset of contingencies to the reliability coordinator. This omission could result in the reliability coordinator not having the information it needs for its situational awareness of exceeding SOLs and IROLs that impact the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. The Commission therefore proposes to direct the ERO to add the following “Lower” violation severity level: “The Planning Authority failed to provide a complete subset of contingencies to the reliability coordinator in accordance with R6.” The Commission also proposes to direct the ERO to reassign NERC's current “Lower” violation severity level as the new “Moderate” violation severity level to emphasize the need to notify the reliability coordinator.23 The revisions proposed here would make the violation severity level assignments for Requirement R6 consistent with NERC's own guidelines for the development of violation severity levels related to communication or coordination requirements.24

29. The Commission has directed NERC to develop violation severity levels for each requirement and sub-requirement of each ReliabilityStandard.25 NERC did not propose any violation severity level assignments for sub-requirements. The Commission therefore proposes to direct the ERO to assign binary violation severity levels for all of the proposed sub-requirements.26 In Order No. 705, the Commission found that the binary approach is appropriate for certain violation severity level assignments.27 In this instance, the binary approach is appropriate because the violation severity level of the base requirement is established by whether a sub-requirement is violated or not, not to what extent a sub-requirement is violated. Thus, the proposed binary requirements satisfy guideline three, which calls for consistency between the violation severity level assignments and their corresponding requirements. For example, FAC-010-2 Requirement R1.1 states that the planning authority's SOL methodology shall “[b]e applicable for developing SOLs used in the planning horizon.”28 NERC did not propose any violation severity levels for this sub-requirement, therefore the Commission proposes a binary severe violation severity level that would be triggered when the planning authority SOL methodology isnotapplicable for developing SOLs in the planning horizon. This binary approach for sub-requirements provides clear criteria to determine a violation of the sub-requirement. The Commission took a similar approach to the sub-requirements applicable to the WECC regional differences.

30. The complete set of the Commission's proposals is included in Attachment A to this order. The Commission proposes to direct the ERO to file the revised violation severity levels within 30 days of the Final Rule in this proceeding.

31. Finally, the Commission notes that NERC did not submit violation risk factors for the version two FAC Reliability Standards. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved the majority of NERC's proposed violation risk factors for the version one FAC Reliability Standards.29 On April 1, 2008, NERC filed revised violation risk factors for the version one FAC Reliability Standards. These were accepted by delegated authority on May 29, 2008. The Commission proposes to direct the ERO to apply those same violation risk factors to the version two FAC Reliability Standards approved in the Final Rule in this proceeding.

32. Although NERC submitted requirements for FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 that address the Western Interconnection regional difference, NERC did not submit violation severity levels or violation risk factors for these requirements. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved version one of the FAC Reliability Standards and directed WECC to develop and submit violation risk factors and violation severity levels that are applicable to the Western Interconnection regional difference.30 The Commission directed WECC to file its violation risk factors and violation severity levels no later than the effective date of the applicable Reliability Standard. FAC-010-1 became effective on July 1, 2008 and FAC-011-1 will become effective on October 1, 2008. To remedy this deficiency, the Commission offers proposed modifications to the violation severity level assignments assigned to FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 that address the Western Interconnection regional differences. The Commission's proposed modifications are included in Attachment A to this order. Consistent with our decision in Order No. 705, the Commission proposes to direct WECC to apply the NERC violation risk factors to the Western Interconnection regional difference until after WECC develops its own and they are approved by the ERO and the Commission.31 We note that WECC is still obligated to comply with the Commission's directives in Order No. 705 to file violation risk factors and violation severity levels addressing the Western Interconnection regional difference.

33. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency.32 The information contained here is also subject to review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.33 As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in Order No. 705, each of the Reliability Standards that are the subject of the current rulemaking. The modifications to the Reliability Standards are minor; therefore, they do not add to or increase entities' reporting burden. Thus, the modified Reliability Standards do not materially affect the burden estimates relating to the earlier version of the Reliability Standards presented in Order No. 705.

Title:Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards.

Action:Proposed Collection.

OMB Control No.:

Respondents:Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency of Responses:On Occasion.

Necessity of the Information:This NOPR proposes to approve three modified Reliability Standards that pertain to facilities design, connections and maintenance. The Reliability Standards will require planning authorities and reliability coordinators to establish methodologies to determine system operating limits (SOLs) for the Bulk-Power System in the planning and operation horizons. This NOPR proposes to find the Reliability Standards and interpretations just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.

34. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street, NE. Washington, DC 20426, Tel: (202) 502-8415, Fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail:michael.miller@ferc.gov, or by contacting: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Re: OMB Control No. 1902-0244), Washington, DC 20503, Tel: (202) 395-4650, Fax: (202) 395-7285, e-mail:oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.

35. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.34 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do notsubstantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.35 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

36. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)36 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration's Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business. (See13 CFR 121.201). For electric utilities, a firm is small if, including affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did not exceed four million megawatt hours. The RFA is not implicated by this Final Rule because the minor modifications and interpretations discussed herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

37. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due November 24, 2008. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM08-11-000, and must include the commenters' name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

38. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site athttp:/www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically should not make a paper filing. Service of rulemaking comments is not required.

39. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

40. All Comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

41. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in theFederal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

42. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The Full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

43. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or (202) 502-6652 (e-mail atferconlinesupport@ferc.gov), or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659 (e-mail atpublic.reference@ferc.gov).

I. Background

On September 8, 2008 (73 FR 52136), MSHA published a proposed rule in theFederal Registerthat would amend the existing metal and nonmetal standardsconcerning the use of intoxicating beverages and narcotics and would make the new standard applicable to all mines. On September 26, 2008 (73 FR 55800), MSHA published a document extending the comment period. The proposed rule would designate the substances that cannot be possessed on mine property or used while performing safety-sensitive job duties, except when used according to a valid prescription. Mine operators would be required to establish an alcohol- and drug-free mine program, which includes a written policy, employee education, supervisory training, alcohol- and drug-testing for miners that perform safety-sensitive job duties and their supervisors, and referrals for assistance for miners and supervisors who violate the policy. The proposed rule would also require those who violate the prohibitions to be removed from the performance of safety-sensitive job duties until they successfully complete the recommended treatment and their alcohol- and drug-free status is confirmed by a return-to-duty test.

MSHA held a public hearing on October 14, 2008 and persons made presentations via Webcast in Washington, DC, Pittsburgh, PA, and Englewood, CO. Additionally, persons made presentations via audio in Birmingham, AL, Beckley, WV, Madisonville, KY, and Price, UT. In response to further requests, MSHA is holding an additional hearing.

MSHA will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule. The public hearing will begin at 9 a.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time (EDST). Persons can make presentations via audio at three locations. The hearing will end at 5 p.m. EDST, or after the last speaker speaks. The hearing will be held on the following date at the locations and times indicated:

The hearing will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. Requests to speak at the hearing should be made prior to the hearing date. Requests to speak may be made by telephone (202-693-9440), facsimile (202-693-9441), electronic mailzzMSHA-comments@dol.govor mail (MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3939). Because members of the public will be able to make oral presentations via audio at several locations, for scheduling purposes, MSHA strongly encourages all parties wishing to speak to notify the Agency in advance.

Any unallocated time at the end of the hearing will be made available to persons making same-day requests to speak. Same-day requestors will speak in the order that they sign in at the hearing. At the discretion of the presiding official, the time allocated to each speaker for their presentation may be limited. Speakers and other attendees may also present information to the MSHA panel for inclusion in the rulemaking record.

The hearing will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence and cross examination will not apply. The hearing panel may ask questions of speakers. Speakers may ask questions of the hearing panel. MSHA will make a transcript of the hearing, post it on MSHA's Web sitehttp://www.msha.gov, and include it in the rulemaking record. A link to the complete audio recording will be placed on MSHA's Web site several days after the hearing.

MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and data for the record from any interested party, including those not presenting oral statements, by midnight Eastern Daylight Savings Time on November 10, 2008.

In proposed rule document E8-24269 beginning on page 60658 in the issue of Tuesday, October 14, 2008, make the following correction:

On page 60661, the table is corrected in part as follows:

You may be affected by this action if you are a producer of pesticide products (NAICS 32532), antifoulants (NAICS 32551), antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS 32561) or wood preservatives (NAICS 32519), importers of such products, or any person or company who seeks to register an antimicrobial, antifoulant coating, ballast water treatment, or wood preservative pesticide or to obtain a tolerance for such a pesticide. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed above could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, please contact Norm Cook, Chief of the Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch in the Antimicrobials Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs at (703) 308-8253 or via email,cook.norm@epa.gov.

1.Docket.EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket athttp://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2.Electronic access. You may access thisFederal Registerdocument electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

EPA is convening a public workshop to explain the proposed revisions to the data requirements for the registration of antimicrobial pesticides. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), anyone seeking to register a pesticide product is required to provide information to EPA to demonstrate that their products can be used without posing “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” as defined by FIFRA section 2(bb).

The public workshop will include presentations by staff from the Antimicrobial, and the Field and External Affairs Divisions of the Office of Pesticide Programs. The proposed revisions are directed at antimicrobial pesticides, not conventional pesticides, biochemical and microbial pesticides or product performance data requirements. Nonetheless, all interested parties are welcome and may benefit from the discussions since two areas not addressed in the conventional pesticide (72 FR 60934, October 26, 2007) (FRL-8106-5), or biochemical and microbial pesticide (72 FR 60988, October 26, 2007) (FRL-8109-8) data requirements final rules are addressed in the antimicrobial data requirements proposed rule. These two areas are: Down-the-drain data requirements and the Program's use of structure-activity-relationship (SAR).

During the workshop, persons in attendance will be able to ask questions regarding the proposed rule and/or material being presented and seek any clarification they believe may assist them in submitting comments to the docket for the proposed rule. Any person wishing to comment on the proposed rule must submit any comments to the docket within the timeframe set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The proposed revisions were issued in theFederal Registerof October 8, 2008 (73 FR 59382) (FRL-8358-2). A 90-day comment period will end on January 6, 2008. The notice of the workshop was published on October 10, 2008 (73 FR 60211) (FRL-8383-6). A limited number of copies of the proposed rule will be available at the workshop. Attendees are encouraged to access the electronic version of the proposed rule from the regulations.gov website under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110.

The Agency has arranged for a web conference to serve as an alternate means of participating in the workshop. You can join the web conference starting at 8 a.m. on November 6, 2008. To access the web conference go tohttp://portal.epa.gov/webconference, and complete the Join Conference box on the right of the screen using the following information: Conference ID: 309742 and Conference Key: 12345. Type in your full name and then select: Join Conference. For the audio portion call (866) 299-3188 and then use code 7033056304#. Additional information on web conferencing can be accessed from the regulations.gov website under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110.

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

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

Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.

Administrative Procedure Act Statement. This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001et seq., and do not fall under the APA.

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

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

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.

Administrative Procedure Act Statement.This matter is not a rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001et seq., and do not fall under the APA.

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

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

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.

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

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

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

This is a summary of the Commission's public notice released on October 10, 2008. The full text of the public notice is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site,http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mailFCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of the public notice also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, RM No. 11497. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site athttp://www.fcc.gov.

On May 20, 2008, RCA filed a petition for rulemaking.1 “Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 202(a), 303(r), and 307(b) of the Communications Act, and Section 1.401 of the Commission's rules,”2 the Petitioner asks the Commission to “initiate a rulemaking to investigate the widespread use and anticompetitive effects of exclusivity arrangements between commercial wireless carriers and handset manufacturers, and, as necessary, adopt rules that prohibit such arrangements when contrary to the public interest.”3 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seeks comment on the Petition.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).

•Electronic Filers:Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail toecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

•Paper Filers:Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed ofbeforeentering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

Parties shall send one copy of their comments and reply comments to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, e-mailFCC@BCPIWEB.com. Parties should also send a copy of their filings to Monica DeLong, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 6530, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail toMonica.DeLong@fcc.gov. Comments filed in response to this public notice will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, RM No. 11497. The comments may also be purchased from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., telephone (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mailFCC@BCPIWEB.com.

This is a summary of the Commission's public notice released on October 10, 2008. The full text of the public notice is available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site,http://www.bcpiweb.com;or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mailFCC@BCPIWEB.com.Copies of the public notice also may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, RM No. 11498. Additionally, the complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site athttp://www.fcc.gov.

On July 16, 2008, RTG filed a petition requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) impose a spectrum aggregation limit on all commercial terrestrial wireless spectrum below 2.3 GHz. Specifically, RTG asks that the Commission adopt rules providing that no licensee of commercial terrestrial wireless spectrum below 2.3 GHz, including all parties under common control, should be permitted to have an attributable interest in more than 110 megahertz of licensed spectrum with any significant overlap in any county. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau seeks comment on RTG's Petition.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).

•Electronic Filers:Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail toecfs@fcc.gov,and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

•Paper Filers:Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed ofbeforeentering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

People with Disabilities:To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail tofcc504@fcc.govor call the Consumer Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Parties shall send one copy of their comments and reply comments to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, e-mailFCC@BCPIWEB.com.Parties should also send a copy of their filings to Angela Kronenberg, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Room 6530, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail toAngela.Kronenberg@fcc.gov.Comments filed in response to this public notice will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, RM No. 11498. The comments may also be purchased from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., telephone (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or e-mailFCC@BCPIWEB.com.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-62, adopted October 8, 2008, and released October 10, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via e-mailhttp://www.BCPIWEB.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, allex partecontacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissibleex partecontacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-97, adopted October 8, 2008, and released October 10, 2008. Petitioner has also filed applications requesting the following: (1) A change in channel class and community of license for FM Station KJKB from Channel 238A at Jacksboro, Texas, to Channel 238C3 at Scotland, Texas, as that community's first local service; (2) A change in channel class and community of license for FM Station KFWR from Channel 240C1 at Mineral Wells, Texas, to Channel 240C0 at Jacksboro, Texas; (3) A change in channel class and community of license of Station KKAJ-FM from Channel 239C1 at Ardmore, Oklahoma, to Channel 239C2 at Frederick, Oklahoma; and (4) A channel change and change in class of FM Station KYBE from Channel 240A to Channel 239C3 at Frederick, Oklahoma.

To facilitate the allotment of Channel 240C0 to Jacksboro for Station KFWR and Channel 239C3 to Frederick for Station KKAJ-FM, petitioner proposes the substitution of Channel 288C2 for vacant Channel 239C2 at Rule, Texas. Channel 288C2 can be allotted at Rule, consistent with Section 73.207 of the Commission's rules, provided that the vacant allotment at Knox City, Texas, is changed from Channel 291A to Channel 293A. To accommodate the allotment of Channel 293A at Knox City, petitioner proposes the substitution of Channel 255C3 for vacant Channel 293C3 at Crowell, Texas. Finally, in order to allot Channel 255C3 at Crowell, Texas, petitioner requests that the Commission change the channel of the vacant allotment at Quanah, Texas, from Channel 255C3 to Channel 251C3. Channel 255C3 can be allotted at Crowell, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 9.2 km (5.7 miles) north of Crowell. The proposed coordinates for Channel 255C3 at Crowell are 34-03-58 North Latitude and 99-43-52 West Longitude. Channel 293A can be allotted at Knox City, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 2.7 km (1.6 miles) northeast of Knox City. The proposed coordinates for Channel 293A at Knox City are 33-25-55 North Latitude and 99-47-43 West Longitude. Channel 251C3 can be allotted at Quanah, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 11.9 km (7.4 miles) north of Quanah. The proposed coordinates for Channel 251C3 at Quanah are 34-24-09 North Latitude and 99-46-02 West Longitude. Channel 288C2 can be allotted at Rule, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 6.6 km (4.1 miles) east of Rule. The proposed coordinates for Channel 288C2 at Rule are 33-10-29 North Latitude and 99-49-26 West Longitude. The proposed channel changes, if granted, would be subject to the final outcome of MM Docket No. 00-148, due to mutual exclusivity between the proposed substitution at Crowell and a proposal in MM Docket No. 00-148 to add Channel 255C3 at Quanah. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378-3160, or via the company's Web site,http://www.bcpiweb.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, allex partecontacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments.See47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissibleex partecontacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,see47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal CommunicationsCommission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 08-68, adopted October 8, 2008, and released October 10, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via e-mailhttp://www.BCPIWEB.com. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, allex partecontacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissibleex partecontacts.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 73 as follows: