49986 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

diseases from entering the United 

States. Such disease and pest 

introductions could lead to reductions 

in agricultural yield and productivity, 

costs to governmental and private 

entities for pest or disease control and 

eradication, losses in export revenues 

due to trade embargoes, and 

environmental degradation, resulting in 

immense harm to U.S. agriculture. 

Another benefit of AQI services is that 

AQI inspectors prevent trade 

disruptions by inspecting and clearing 

cargo on a timely basis. Consumers and 

taxpayers would certainly feel the 

negative effects if AQI services were 

disrupted or reduced. 

A commenter stated that the interim 

rule contained no suggestion that AQI 

user fees could ever be decreased due to 

lower traffic volume and less workload. 

As we noted in the interim rule and 

earlier in this document, we review our 

fees annually and, if necessary, 

undertake rulemaking to amend them. 

We will adjust a fee up or down, as 

appropriate, depending on the actual 

cost of providing services. We have 

adjusted user fees downward in the 

past. In a final rule published in the 

Federal Register on January 19, 1996 

(61 FR 2660–2665 Docket No. 94–074–

2) and effective on March 1, 1996, we 

decreased our AQI user fee for 

commercial aircraft by 13.1 percent after 

our cost analysis revealed that this fee 

was too high. 

One commenter argued that the AQI 

user fee increases contained in the 

interim rule placed a disproportionate 

economic burden on the U.S. airline 

industry, undermining its attempts at 

financial recovery. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

The December 2004 interim rule 

included user fee adjustments for the 

inspection of commercial vessels, 

commercial trucks, and commercial 

railroad cars, as well as commercial 

aircraft, reflecting the increased costs of 

administering AQI services for all these 

types of conveyances. Had we exempted 

airlines from the fee increases, we 

would have placed an unfair burden on 

operators of other conveyances by 

forcing them to pay the airlines’ share 

of the increased costs. 

One commenter argued that 

clarification is needed regarding 

operational and revenue sharing 

agreements between CBP and APHIS so 

that air couriers can understand which 

agency is responsible for providing 

specific AQI services under particular 

circumstances and which agency is 

responsible for billing for those services. 

APHIS continues to establish the 

animal and plant health policies and 

procedures for the AQI programs, under 

the authority of the Plant Protection Act, 

while CBP staff carry out most of these 

policies and procedures. CBP’s 

agriculture specialists perform the 

primary inspections. APHIS personnel 

are still responsible for such functions 

as pest identification, agricultural 

product disposal, and fumigations, and 

are most likely to become involved in 

the inspection process subsequent to the 

primary inspection when a treatment is 

required or a violation of the regulations 

has occurred. The regulations in § 354.3 

contain information on billing and 

requirements for the remittance of user 

fees, as well as the tables that list the 

fees. The December 2004 interim rule 

included only minor, nonsubstantive 

changes to the provisions concerning 

billing and remittances. CBP’s 

regulations pertaining to user fee billing 

and remittances are located in title 24 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations. APHIS 

and CBP do have a revenue-sharing 

agreement. 

Finally, a commenter inquired as to 

how AQI user fee revenues are 

distributed between CBP and APHIS. 

The distribution is based on the cost 

to each agency of performing the AQI 

functions covered by a particular fee. 

APHIS and CBP have a signed 

memorandum of understanding that 

specifies how AQI user fee revenues are 

to be distributed. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

interim rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the interim rule as a final 

rule without change. 

This action also affirms the 

information contained in the interim 

rule concerning Executive Order 12866 

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Further, this action 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. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 354 

Animal diseases, Exports, 

Government employees, Imports, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Travel and transportation 

expenses. 

PART 354—OVERTIME SERVICES 

RELATING TO IMPORTS AND 

EXPORTS; AND USER FEES 

■ Accordingly, we are adopting as a 

final rule, without change, the interim 

rule that amended 7 CFR part 354 and 

that was published at 69 FR 71660–

71683 on December 9, 2004. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

August 2006. 

Bruce Knight, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. E6–14041 Filed 8–23–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Farm Service Agency 

7 CFR Part 717 

RIN 0560–AH64 

Removal of Obsolete Regulations; 

Holding of Referenda 

AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action removes 

regulations that have been rendered 

obsolete by expiration of their statutory 

authority and the ending of the 

programs they governed. There are no 

impacts on past or current program 

operations. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 24, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Phillip Elder, Regulatory Review Group, 

Farm Service Agency, USDA, STOP 

0540, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0540; 

Telephone: (202) 205–5851; e-mail: 

Phillip.Elder@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion of Final Rule 

This rule removes regulations at 7 

CFR Part 717, Holding of Referenda. 

That regulation has been rendered 

obsolete by repeal of its statutory 

authority and the ending of it applicable 

programs. Part 717 was authorized by 

the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 

(1938 Act), as amended, and was 

applicable to all referenda held 

pursuant to that Act. This Act required 

the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 

national marketing quotas for fluecured, burley and other types of tobacco 

in years where producers of such 

tobacco approved of having a national 

marketing quota (see 7 U.S.C. 1312 et 

seq. (2000)). The quotas for the 

respective crops were approved or 

disapproved by such producers in a 

referendum conducted as provided in 

part 717. Sections 611 through 613 of 

the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 

(Pub. L. 108–357; the 2004 Act) repealed 

the tobacco marketing quota and related 

price support programs authorized by 

Title III of the 1938 Act and the 

Agricultural Act of 1949. Thus, the 

Farm Service Agency has no authority 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 164 / Thursday, August 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 49987 

for conducting producer referenda and 7 

CFR part 717 is obsolete. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule related to internal agency 

management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed 

rulemaking and opportunity for 

comment are not required, and this rule 

may be made effective less than 30 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. Further, because this rule 

relates to internal agency management, 

it is exempt from the provisions of 

Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12866. 

Finally, this action is not a rule as 

defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is 

therefore exempt from the provisions of 

that Act. Accordingly, as authorized by 

section 808 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 808, this rule may be 

made effective upon publication. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not affect any 

information collections. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 717 

Agricultural Commodities, 

Allotments, Price support programs, 

Quotas, Tobacco. 

PART 717—[REMOVED] 

■ Accordingly, under the authority of 5 

U.S.C. 301, 7 CFR Chapter VII is 

amended by removing part 717. 

Signed at Washington, DC on August 9, 

2006. 

Teresa C. Lasseter, 

Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. 06–7159 Filed 8–23–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. CE258; Special Conditions No. 

23–198–SC] 

Special Conditions: Avcon Industries, 

Inc.; Learjet Model 23 Series Airplanes; 

High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued to Avcon Industries, Inc., for the 

Learjet Model 23 series airplanes 

modified by Avcon Industries, Inc. This 

airplane as modified by Avcon 

Industries, Inc., will have a novel or 

unusual design feature associated with 

the installation of a new Reduced 

Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) 

air data system. The applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the protection of these systems from 

the effects of high-intensity radiated 

fields (HIRF). These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is August 17, 2006. 

Comments must be received on or 

before September 25, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on these special 

conditions may be mailed in duplicate 

to: Federal Aviation Administration, 

Regional Counsel, ACE–7, Attention: 

Rules Docket CE258, 901 Locust, Room 

506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106 or 

delivered in duplicate to the Regional 

Counsel at the above address. 

Comments must be marked: CE258. 

Comments may be inspected in the 

Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal 

holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ervin Dvorak, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Small Airplane Directorate, 

ACE–111, 901 Locust, Room 301, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 816–329–

4123; fax 816–329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The FAA has determined that notice 

and opportunity for prior public 

comment hereon are impracticable 

because these procedures would 

significantly delay issuance of the 

approval design and thus delivery of the 

affected aircraft. In addition, the 

substance of these special conditions 

has been subject to the public comment 

process in several prior instances with 

no substantive comments received. The 

FAA therefore finds that good cause 

exists for making these special 

conditions effective on issuance. 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit such written data, views, or 

arguments as they may desire. 

Communications should identify the 

regulatory docket or special condition 

number and be submitted in duplicate 

to the address specified above. All 

communications received on or before 

the closing date for comments will be 

considered by the Administrator. The 

special conditions may be changed in 

light of the comments received. All 

comments received will be available in 

the Rules Docket for examination by 

interested persons, both before and after 

the closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

submitted in response to this notice 

must include a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

CE258.’’ The postcard will be date 

stamped and returned to the 

commenter. 

Background 

On June 26, 2006, Avcon Industries, 

Inc.; P.O. Box 748; Newton, Kansas 

67114, applied for a supplemental type 

certificate (STC) to modify Learjet 

Model 23 series airplanes currently 

approved under Type Certificate (TC) 

No. A5CE. The Learjet 23 series 

airplanes are normal category airplanes 

powered by two turbojet engines, with 

a maximum takeoff weight of 12,500 

pounds. These airplanes operate with a 

2-person crew and can seat up to 8 

passengers. The proposed modification 

is the installation of an Innovative 

Solutions & Support Air Data Display 

Units and Analog Interface Unit. The 

avionics/electronics and electrical 

systems installed in this airplane have 

the potential to be vulnerable to HIRF 

external to the airplane. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of § 21.101, 

Avcon Industries, Inc., must show that 

the Learjet Model 23 series airplanes, as 

changed, continue to meet the 

applicable provisions of the regulations 

incorporated by reference in Type 

Certificate No. A5CE, or the applicable 

regulations in effect on the date of 

application for the change. The 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

the type certificate are commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘original type 

certification basis.’’ The regulations 

incorporated by reference in the Type 

Certificate No. A5CE for the Learjet 

Model 23 series airplanes includes Civil 

Air Regulations (CAR), part 3, effective 

May 15, 1956, as amended by 

Amendments 3–1 through 3–8, plus 

special conditions set forth in FAA 

letter to Learjet, dated November 12, 

1963, and Amendment No. 1, dated July 

31, 1964, and No. 2, dated March 14, 

1966, and Exception No. 352 from 

compliance with CAR 3.74(a)(2) and (3) 

for ground operation at a maximum 

weight of 12,750 pounds. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., part 23, as amended) do not 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1