Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed special conditions

7,197 words·~33 min read·/register/2006/02/17/06-1529

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE239; Notice No. 23-06-01-SC] Special Conditions: Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques

(SMA)Engines, Inc., Cessna Models 182Q and 182R; Diesel Cycle Engine Using Turbine

(Jet)Fuel AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with a Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques

(SMA)Model SR305-230 aircraft diesel engine (ADE). This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with the installation of a diesel cycle engine utilizing turbine

(jet)fuel. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for installation of this new technology engine. These proposed 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: Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE239, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: CE239. 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: Peter L. Rouse, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4135, fax 816-329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice 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 proposals described in this notice 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. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to CE239.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background An application for a Supplemental Type Certification of Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes for the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 was made on March 19, 2004, by the Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques

(SMA)Engines, Inc. through the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). The airplane is powered by a SMA Model SR305-230 aircraft diesel engine (ADE), type certificated in the United States, type certificate number E00067EN. In anticipation of the reintroduction of diesel engine technology into the small airplane fleet, the FAA issued Policy Statement PS-ACE100-2002-004 on May 15, 2004, which identified areas of technological concern involving introduction of new technology diesel engines into small airplanes. For a more detailed summary of the FAA's development of diesel engine requirements, refer to this policy. The general areas of concern involved the power characteristics of the diesel engines, the use of turbine fuel in an airplane class that has typically been powered by gasoline fueled engines, and the vibration characteristics and failure modes of diesel engines. These concerns were identified after review of the historical record of diesel engine used in aircraft and a review of the 14 CFR part 23 regulations, which identified specific regulatory areas that needed to be evaluated for applicability to diesel engine installations. These concerns are not considered universally applicable to all types of possible diesel engines and diesel engine installations. However, after review of the SMA installation, and applying the provisions of the diesel policy, the FAA proposes these fuel system and engine related special conditions. Other special conditions issued in a separate notice include special conditions for HIRF and application of § 23.1309 provisions to the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques

(SMA)Engines, Inc. must show that the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-51 and CAR 3 thereto. In addition, the certification basis includes special conditions and equivalent levels of safety for the following: *Special Conditions:* • Engine torque (Provisions similar to § 23.361, paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(3)). • Flutter (Compliance with § 23.629, paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)). • Powerplant—Installation (Provisions similar to § 23.901(d)(1) for turbine engines). • Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel system with water saturated fuel (Compliance with § 23.951 requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel system hot weather operation (Compliance with § 23.961 requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel tank filler connection (Compliance with § 23.973(f) requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel tank outlet (Compliance with § 23.977 requirements). • Equipment—General—Powerplant Instruments (Compliance with § 23.1305 requirements). • Operating Limitations and Information—Powerplant limitations—Fuel grade or designation (Compliance with § 23.1521(d) requirements). • Markings and Placards—Miscellaneous markings and placards—Fuel, oil, and coolant filler openings (Compliance with § 23.1557(c)(1) requirements). • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel-Freezing. • Powerplant Installation—Vibration levels. • Powerplant Installation—One cylinder inoperativ.e • Powerplant Installation—High Energy Engine Fragments. *Equivalent levels of safety for:* • Cockpit controls—23.777(d). • Motion and effect of cockpit controls—23.779(b). • Ignition switches—23.1145. The type certification basis includes exemptions, if any; equivalent level of safety findings, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. In addition, if the regulations incorporated by reference do not provide adequate standards with respect to the change, the applicant must comply with certain regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The type certification basis for the modified airplanes is as stated previously with the following modifications: If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( *i.e.* , part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 must comply with the 14 CFR 21.115 noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.17. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230 will incorporate an aircraft diesel engine utilizing turbine

(jet)fuel. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. Discussion The major concerns identified in the development of FAA policy deal with the installation of the diesel engine and its vibration levels under normal operating conditions and with one cylinder inoperative, the accommodation of turbine fuels in airplane systems that have generally evolved based on gasoline requirements, the anticipated use of a FADEC to control the engine, and the appropriate limitations and indications for a diesel engine powered airplane. The general concerns associated with the aircraft diesel engine installation are as follows: Installation and Vibration Requirements. Fuel and Fuel System Related Requirements. FADEC and Electrical System Requirements. Limitations and Indications. *Installation and Vibration Requirements:* These special conditions include requirements similar to the requirements of § 23.901(d)(1) for turbine engines. In addition to the requirements of § 23.901 applied to reciprocating engines, the applicant will be required to construct and arrange each diesel engine installation to result in vibration characteristics that do not exceed those established during the type certification of the engine; and do not exceed vibration characteristics that a previously certificated airframe structure has been approved for, unless such vibration characteristics are shown to have no effect on safety or continued airworthiness. The engine limit torque design requirements as specified in § 23.361 are also modified. An additional requirement to consider vibration levels and/or effects of an inoperative cylinder was imposed. Also, a requirement to evaluate the engine design for the possibility of, or effect of, liberating high-energy engine fragments, in the event of a catastrophic engine failure, requirements was added. *Fuel and Fuel System Related Requirements:* Due to the use of turbine fuel, this airplane must comply with the requirements in § 23.951(c). Section 23.961 will be complied with using the turbine fuel requirements. These requirements will be substantiated by flight-tests as described in Advisory Circular AC 23-8B, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes. This special condition specifically requires testing to show compliance to § 23.961 and adds the possibility of testing non-aviation diesel fuels. To ensure fuel system compatibility and reduce the possibility of misfueling, and discounting the first clause of § 23.973(f) referring to turbine engines, the applicant will comply with § 23.973(f). Due to the use of turbine fuel, the applicant will comply with § 23.977(a)(2), and § 23.977(a)(1) will not apply. “Turbine engines” will be interpreted to mean “aircraft diesel engine” for this requirement. An additional requirement to consider the possibility of fuel freezing was imposed. Due to the use of turbine fuel, the applicant will comply with § 23.1305(c)(8). Due to the use of turbine fuel, the applicant must comply with § 23.1557(c)(1)(ii). Section 23.1557(c)(1)(i) will not apply. “Turbine engine” is interpreted to mean “aircraft diesel engine” for this requirement. *Limitations and Indications* : Critical engine parameters for this installation that will be displayed include the following:

(1)Fuel temperature. Due to the use of turbine fuel, the requirements for § 23.1521(d), as applicable to fuel designation for turbine engines, will apply. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Cessna Model 182Q or 182R airplane with SMA SR305-230 installed. 1. Engine Torque (Provisions Similar to § 23.361, Paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(3))

(a)For diesel engine installations, the engine mounts and supporting structure must be designed to withstand the following:

(1)A limit engine torque load imposed by sudden engine stoppage due to malfunction or structural failure. The effects of sudden engine stoppage may alternately be mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of isolators, dampers clutches and similar provisions, so that unacceptable load levels are not imposed on the previously certificated structure.

(b)The limit engine torque obtained in CAR 3.195(a)(1) and (a)(2) or 14 CFR 23.361(a)(1) and (a)(2) must be obtained by multiplying the mean torque by a factor of four in lieu of the factor of two required by CAR 3.195(b) and 14 CFR 23.361(c)(3). 2. Flutter—(Compliance With § 23.629 (e)(1) and (e)(2) Requirements) The flutter evaluation of the airplane done in accordance with 14 CFR 23.629 must include—

(a)Whirl mode degree of freedom which takes into account the stability of the plane of rotation of the propeller and significant elastic, inertial, and aerodynamic forces, and

(b)Propeller, engine, engine mount and airplane structure stiffness and damping variations appropriate to the particular configuration, and

(c)Showing the airplane is free from flutter with one cylinder inoperative. 3. Powerplant—Installation (Provisions Similar to § 23.901(d)(1) for Turbine Engines) Considering the vibration characteristics of diesel engines, the applicant must comply with the following:

(a)Each diesel engine installation must be constructed and arranged to result in vibration characteristics that—

(1)Do not exceed those established during the type certification of the engine; and

(2)Do not exceed vibration characteristics that a previously certificated airframe structure has been approved for—

(i)Unless such vibration characteristics are shown to have no effect on safety or continued airworthiness, or

(ii)Unless mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of isolators, dampers clutches and similar provisions, so that unacceptable vibration levels are not imposed on the previously certificated structure. 4. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel System With Water Saturated Fuel (Compliance With § 23.951 Requirements) Considering the fuel types used by diesel engines, the applicant must comply with the following: Each fuel system for a diesel engine must be capable of sustained operation throughout its flow and pressure range with fuel initially saturated with water at 80° F and having 0.75cc of free water per gallon added and cooled to the most critical condition for icing likely to be encountered in operation. Methods of compliance that are acceptable for turbine engine fuel systems requirements of § 23.951(c) are also considered acceptable for this requirement. 5. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Flow (Compliance With § 23.955(c) Requirements) In lieu of 14 CFR 23.955(c), engine fuel system must provide at least 100 percent of the fuel flow required by the engine, or the fuel flow required to prevent engine damage, if that flow is greater than 100 percent. The fuel flow rate must be available to the engine under each intended operating condition and maneuver. The conditions may be simulated in a suitable mockup. This flow must be shown in the most adverse fuel feed condition with respect to altitudes, attitudes, and any other condition that is expected in operation. 6. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel System Hot Weather Operation (Compliance With § 23.961 Requirements) In place of compliance with § 23.961, the applicant must comply with the following: Each fuel system must be free from vapor lock when using fuel at its critical temperature, with respect to vapor formation, when operating the airplane in all critical operating and environmental conditions for which approval is requested. For turbine fuel, or for aircraft equipped with diesel cycle engines that use turbine or diesel type fuels, the initial temperature must be 110° F, −0°, +5° or the maximum outside air temperature for which approval is requested, whichever is more critical. The fuel system must be in an operational configuration that will yield the most adverse, that is, conservative results. To comply with this requirement, the applicant must use the turbine fuel requirements and must substantiate these by flight-testing, as described in Advisory Circular AC 23-8B, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes. 7. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Tank Filler Connection (Compliance With § 23.973(f) Requirements) In place of compliance with § 23.973(e) and (f), the applicant must comply with the following: For airplanes that operate on turbine or diesel type fuels, the inside diameter of the fuel filler opening must be no smaller than 2.95 inches. 8. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Tank Outlet (Compliance With § 23.977 Requirements) In place of compliance with § 23.977(a)(1) and (a)(2), the applicant will comply with the following: There must be a fuel strainer for the fuel tank outlet or for the booster pump. This strainer must, for diesel engine powered airplanes, prevent the passage of any object that could restrict fuel flow or damage any fuel system component. 9. Equipment—General—Powerplant Instruments (Compliance With § 23.1305) In addition to compliance with § 23.1305, the applicant will comply with the following: The following are required in addition to the powerplant instruments required in § 23.1305:

(a)A fuel temperature indictor.

(b)An outside air temperature

(OAT)indicator.

(c)An indicating means for the fuel strainer or filter required by § 23.997 to indicate the occurrence of contamination of the strainer or filter before it reaches the capacity established in accordance with § 23.997(d). Alternately, no indicator is required if the engine can operate normally for a specified period with the fuel strainer exposed to the maximum fuel contamination as specified in MIL-5007D and provisions for replacing the fuel filter at this specified period (or a shorter period) are included in the maintenance schedule for the engine installation. 10. Operating Limitations and Information—Powerplant Limitations—Fuel Grade or Designation (Compliance With § 23.1521 Requirements) All engine parameters that have limits specified by the engine manufacturer for takeoff or continuous operation must be investigated to ensure they remain within those limits throughout the expected flight and ground envelopes ( *e.g.* maximum and minimum fuel temperatures, ambient temperatures, as applicable, etc.). This is in addition to the existing requirements specified by 14 CFR 23.1521(b) and (c). If any of those limits can be exceeded, there must be continuous indication to the flight crew of the status of that parameter with appropriate limitation markings. Instead of compliance with § 23.1521(d), the applicant must comply with the following: The minimum fuel designation (for diesel engines) must be established so that it is not less than that required for the operation of the engines within the limitations in paragraphs

(b)and

(c)of § 23.1521. 11. Markings and Placards—Miscellaneous Markings and Placards—Fuel, Oil, and Coolant Filler Openings (Compliance With § 23.1557(c)(1) Requirements) Instead of compliance with § 23.1557(c)(1), the applicant must comply with the following: Fuel filler openings must be marked at or near the filler cover with— For diesel engine-powered airplanes—

(a)The words “Jet Fuel”; and

(b)The permissible fuel designations, or references to the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)for permissible fuel designations.

(c)A warning placard or note that states the following or similar: “Warning—this airplane equipped with an aircraft diesel engine, service with approved fuels only.” The colors of this warning placard should be black and white. 12. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel-Freezing If the fuel in the tanks cannot be shown to flow suitably under all possible temperature conditions, then fuel temperature limitations are required. These will be considered as part of the essential operating parameters for the aircraft and must be limitations. A minimum takeoff temperature limitation will be determined by testing to establish the minimum cold-soaked temperature at which the airplane can operate. The minimum operating temperature will be determined by testing to establish the minimum operating temperature acceptable after takeoff from the minimum takeoff temperature. If low temperature limits are not established by testing, then a minimum takeoff and operating fuel temperature limit of 5° F above the gelling temperature of Jet A will be imposed along with a display in the cockpit of the fuel temperature. Fuel temperature sensors will be located in the coldest part of the tank if applicable. 13. Powerplant Installation—Vibration Levels Vibration levels throughout the engine operating range must be evaluated and:

(1)Vibration *levels imposed on the airframe* must be less than or equivalent to those of the gasoline engine; or

(2)Any vibration level that is higher than that imposed on the airframe by the replaced gasoline engine must be considered in the modification and the effects on the technical areas covered by the following paragraphs must be investigated: 14 CFR 23.251; 23.613; 23.627; 23.629 (or CAR 3.159, as applicable to various models); 23.572; 23.573; 23.574 and 23.901. Vibration levels imposed on the airframe can be mitigated to an acceptable level by utilization of isolators, dampers, clutches, and similar provisions, so that unacceptable vibration levels are not imposed on the previously certificated structure. 14. Powerplant Installation—One Cylinder Inoperative It must be shown by test or analysis, or by a combination of methods, that the airframe can withstand the shaking or vibratory forces imposed by the engine if a cylinder becomes inoperative. Diesel engines of conventional design typically have extremely high levels of vibration when a cylinder becomes inoperative. No unsafe condition will exist in the case of an inoperative cylinder before the engine can be shut down. The resistance of the airframe structure, propeller, and engine mount to shaking moment and vibration damage must be investigated. It must be shown by test or analysis, or by a combination of methods, that shaking and vibration damage from the engine with an inoperative cylinder will not cause a catastrophic airframe, propeller, or engine mount failure. 15. Powerplant Installation—High Energy Engine Fragments It may be possible for diesel engine cylinders (or portions thereof) to fail and physically separate from the engine at high velocity (due to the high internal pressures). This failure mode will be considered possible in engine designs with removable cylinders or other non-integral block designs. The following is required:

(1)It must be shown by the design of the engine that engine cylinders, other engine components or portions thereof (fragments) cannot be shed or blown off of the engine in the event of a catastrophic engine failure; or

(2)It must be shown that all possible liberated engine parts or components do not have adequate energy to penetrate engine cowlings; or

(3)Assuming infinite fragment energy, and analyzing the trajectory of the probable fragments and components, any hazard due to liberated engine parts or components will be minimized and the possibility of crew injury eliminated. Minimization must be considered during initial design and not presented as an analysis after design completion. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on February 9, 2006. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate. Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-2285 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23936; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-215-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 and 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the manufacturer's date code on certain electrical relays to identify defective Leach TDH-series electrical relays and replacement of identified relays. This proposed AD results from a report of defective electrical relays affecting emergency equipment. We are proposing this AD to prevent the malfunction of emergency equipment (the passenger oxygen system, the thrust reverse control system, and the auxiliary power unit fire detection, warning, and extinguishing system) during an emergency. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:

(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone

(516)228-7311; fax

(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-23936; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-215-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. TCCA advises that Leach International, a manufacturer of electrical relays, has reported a manufacturing defect in a batch of its TDH-series electrical relays installed on the subject airplanes. The material in the time delay module of these relays can crack at temperatures higher than 140 degrees Fahrenheit. If there is a crack in the time delay module, the relay coil will break and the relay will not operate. The systems affected by these relays include the passenger oxygen system, the thrust reverse control system, and the auxiliary power unit

(APU)fire detection, warning, and extinguishing system. No in-service problems caused by these relays have been reported to date. However, this condition, if not corrected, could result in the malfunction of emergency equipment (the passenger oxygen system, the thrust reverse control system, and the APU fire detection, warning, and extinguishing system) during an emergency. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-24-118, Revision A, dated August 8, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the manufacturer's date code on certain electrical relays to identify defective Leach TDH-series relays and replacement of those relays with serviceable relays, as identified in the service bulletin. The subject relays are the K4WQ, K5WQ, K3QA, K4QA, K4WG, K1CN, and K2CN relays. TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-35, dated September 1, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection of Part A relays 6 $65 $390 753 $293,670 Inspection of Part B relays 6 65 390 753 293,670 Inspection of Part C relays 2 65 130 753 97,890 Inspection of Part D relays 6 65 390 753 293,670 Inspection of Part E relays 6 65 390 753 293,670 Total for inspection of all relays 26 65 $1,690 753 1,272,570 Authority for This Rulemaking 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. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Docket No. FAA-2006-23936; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-215-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 20, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/N) 7003 and subsequent. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of defective electrical relays affecting emergency equipment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the malfunction of emergency equipment (the passenger oxygen system, the thrust reverse control system, and the auxiliary power unit

(APU)fire detection, warning, and extinguishing system) during an emergency. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin References

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Parts A through E of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-118, Revision A, dated August 8, 2005. Relay Inspection

(g)Within 5,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first: Do an inspection of the manufacturer's date code on the K4WQ, K5WQ, K3QA, K4QA, K4WG, K1CN, and K2CN electrical relays, in accordance with the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph

(h)of this AD. Alternative To Relay Inspection for Certain Airplanes

(h)For airplanes having S/Ns 7003 through 7363 inclusive, and 7889 and subsequent, which were not manufactured with the subject Leach TDH-series relays installed: A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the inspection of the manufacturer's date code on the K4WQ, K5WQ, K3QA, K4QA, K4WG, K1CN, and K2CN electrical relays, if the manufacturer's date code can be conclusively determined from that review. Replacement of Identified Relays

(i)Prior to further flight: Replace any electrical relay having a manufacturer's date code specified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of the service bulletin that is identified during the inspection or maintenance records review specified in paragraph

(g)or

(h)of this AD with a serviceable relay, in accordance with the service bulletin. Inspections and Replacements According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(j)Inspecting and replacing the subject electrical relays is also acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs

(g)and

(i)of this AD, as applicable, if done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Accomplishment Instructions of Parts A through E of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-118, dated January 3, 2005. Parts Installation

(k)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a Leach TDH-series K4WQ, K5WQ, K3QA, K4QA, K4WG, K1CN, or K2CN relay with a manufacturer's date code specified in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of the service bulletin on any airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (I)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information

(m)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-35, dated September 1, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 9, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-2319 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Chapter I Establishment of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area ACTION: Notice of establishment. SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior is establishing the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management to negotiate and develop a special regulation for dog management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area, in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 564. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Ft. Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, California 94123, 415-561-4720. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary has determined that establishment of this Committee is in the public interest and supports the National Park Service in performing its duties and responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* ; the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ; and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb *et seq.* In accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 564, a Notice of Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee was published in the **Federal Register** on June 28, 2005, providing a 30-day public comment period which concluded July 28, 2005. Three hundred thirty seven responses were received during the comment period. Substantive Comments Committee Additions Comments suggested additions to the Committee which can be grouped into the following broad categories: Volunteer restoration groups, general park users not affiliated with any group, representation of adjacent governmental agencies, communities of color, disabled, additional dogwalkers associated with specific GGNRA sites and additional recreational user groups and advocates for narrowly-defined outcomes. Response The National Park Service is aware that a balanced Committee is necessary in order for discussions to be meaningful and fair. The Negotiated Rulemaking Procedure Act (U.S.C. Title 5, Part I, Chapter 5, Subchapter III) passed by Congress, states that a federal agency considering negotiated rulemaking must determine that there are a limited number of identifiable interests that will be significantly affected by the rule and that there is a reasonable likelihood that a committee can be convened with a balanced representation of persons who can adequately represent the interests identified. The Act also states that a federal agency can use the services of a “convener” to determine the above. NPS, working through the U.S. Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution, hired the Center for Collaborative Policy

(CCP)in March, 2004, and they subsequently assisted in identifying interests significantly affected by a proposed rule and representatives of those interests. However, as a result of comments received, NPS has proposed replacing one of the two initially proposed equestrian representatives, who both belonged to groups in the north district of the park, with a representative of equestrian interests in the south district of the park. The NPS, with the approval of other Committee members, will work to bring a broad range of input to the Committee through membership on subcommittees, by presentations to the Committee and subcommittees and through the public comment period at each Committee meeting. Committee Deletions Comments were also received suggesting that some proposed members be removed. It was suggested the following representative groups be deleted: commercial dogwalkers, off-leash advocates (over-representation), representatives of those opposing any off-leash use in the park and those who are perceived as being unable to negotiate in good faith. In addition, the Presidio Trust has withdrawn from the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee but stated that they will participate in the concurrent NEPA process. Response The Negotiated Rulemaking Act states that interests must be willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rule. Even though recent activities surrounding this issue have raised emotions, all proposed committee members except one have recently reaffirmed willingness to move forward with the process. The one off-leash dogwalking representative who was unwilling to agree to good faith standards has been replaced by another off-leash representative who had been previously suggested for committee membership. In the final, proposed committee membership, commercial dogwalkers, off-leash dogwalkers, and those opposing off-leash uses are all interest groups who use the park and are noted in the Notice of Intent as interest groups significantly affected by this issue and thus, must be involved in any meaningful discussions. Among the interest groups supporting off-leash dogwalking, there are a numerous viewpoints; in addition, the proposed committee membership has been selected to provide a balance of groups with shared interests. The proposed membership balances those shared interests of groups advocating voice control, groups representing the environment and representatives of other park user groups. Committee Purpose and Process Comments responded to a number of factors surrounding the establishment and scope of the Committee. Broadly categorized, the comments addressed: the NPS mandate to protect resources; the scope and sideboards for the Committee's discussions; the validity and effectiveness of the negotiated rulemaking process itself and the recent decision by Judge Alsup ( *U.S.* vs. *Barley* ). Response The NPS has a responsibility to protect resources under the NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.,* the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et. seq.,* and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb *et seq.* Concurrent to the Committee discussions, NPS is initiating preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)to determine when and where off-leash and on-leash dogwalking can occur and under what conditions. The scope and sideboards of the Committee discussions were not affected by Judge Alsup's recent decision ( *U.S.* vs. *Barley* ), which was based on a procedural error and is in effect until such time as the procedural error is corrected or a new regulation is adopted. The NPS feels that Negotiated Rulemaking gives the best chance of success for resolving this controversial issue. The NOI states that the scope of the Negotiated Rulemaking discussions can include on-leash dogwalking, which will be included in a dog management plan for GGNRA. Non-Substantive Comments A number of comments were received that did not address the establishment or membership of the negotiated rulemaking committee, but did address the general issue of off-leash dogwalking. Those comments addressed the following categories: support or opposition of establishing off-leash dogwalking in GGNRA; options for establishing and managing off-leash dogwalking in GGNRA; the history of off-leash dogwalking at GGNRA; the mandate of GGNRA to protect the resources for which it was established; the existence of an NPS-wide leash regulation; that GGNRA is not responsible for providing off-leash recreation; the need for dogs to be off-leash; the impact, or lack of impact, of off-leash dogs on natural resources; the safety, or risk, that off-leash dogwalking creates; that off-leash dogwalking has restricted use of park areas by other user groups and that all taxpayers are equally entitled to use the park. Response The NPS will be preparing a comprehensive dog management plan and associated environmental impact statement that will evaluate a full range of reasonable alternatives for dog management at GGNRA. The NPS will take these comments into consideration when preparing the plan. Committee Membership The Secretary has appointed the following primary and alternate members to the Committee: 1. The interests of the Department of the Interior will be represented by: National Park Service—Christine Powell Alternate—Howard Levitt 2. The interests of organizations and visitors advocating off-leash use will be represented by: a. Crissy Field Dog Group—Martha Walters Alternate—Cynthia Adams b. Fort Funston Dog Walkers—Linda McKay Alternate—Karin Hu c. CalDog—Gary Fergus Alternate—Carol Copsey d. Pacifica Dog Walkers—Jeri Flinn Alternate—Anne Farrow e. San Francisco Dog Owners Group—Keith McAllister Alternate—Carol Arnold 3. The interests of commercial dog walking businesses will be represented by: ProDog—Joe Hague Alternate—Donna Sproull 4. The interests of environmental organizations will be represented by: a. California Native Plant Society—Mark Heath Alternate—Jake Sigg b. Center for Biological Diversity—Brent Plater Alternate—Jeff Miller c. Birdwatchers—Arthur Feinstein (Environmentalist) Alternate—Elizabeth Murdock (Golden Gate Audubon) d. Marine Mammals—Erin Brodie (Marine Mammal Center) Alternate—Joanne Mohr (Farollones Marine Sanctuary Association) e. Sierra Club (Local Chapter)—Norman LaForce Alternate—Gorden Bennett f. San Francisco League of Conservation Voters—Steven Krefting Alternate—Michelle Jesperson 5. The interests of other park user groups will be represented by: a. Coleman Advocates for Youth—David Robinson Alternate—Marybeth Wallace b. Equestrian Groups—Judy Teichman (Marinwatch) Alternate—Holly Prohaska (Mar Vista Stables) c. Seniors and Disabled—Bruce Livingston (Senior Action Network) Alternate—Bob Planthold (Senior Action Network) d. Marin Humane Society—Cindy Machado Alternate—Steve Hill e. San Francisco SPCA—Daniel Crain Alternate—Christine Rosenblat f. Former member of GGNRA Citizens Advisory Commission—Paul Jones Alternate—Betsey Cutler In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix, copies of the Committee's chapter will be filled with the appropriate committees of Congress and with the Library of Congress. *Certification:* I hereby certify that the administrative establishment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for dog management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior by the Act of August 25, 1916, 16 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.,* and other statutes relating to the administration of the National Park System. Dated: February 6, 2006. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. 06-1529 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

CFR