Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed special conditions

25,443 words·~116 min read·/register/2006/06/21/06-5591

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

BILLING CODE 4810-02-P; 6210-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM347; Notice No. 25-06-06-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 777-200 Series Airplanes; Forward Lower Lobe Crew Rest Compartment

(CRC)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. These airplanes, modified by Aerocon Engineering Company (AEC), will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with a forward lower lobe crew rest compartment (CRC). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. 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: We must receive your comments by August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM347, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. You may deliver two copies to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. You must mark your comments: Docket No. NM347. You can inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2194; facsimile

(425)227-1320. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, date, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., weekdays, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may make changes to these proposed special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On March 10, 2005, Aerocon Engineering Company

(AEC)applied for a supplemental type certificate to permit installation of a CRC in Boeing 777-200 series airplanes. The CRC will be located under the passenger cabin floor in the forward cargo compartment of Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. It will be the size of three standard airfreight containers, combined, and will be removable from the cargo compartment. The CRC will be occupied in flight but not during taxi, takeoff, or landing. No more than ten crewmembers at a time will be permitted to occupy it. The CRC will have a smoke detection system, a hand held fire extinguishing system, and an oxygen system. The CRC will be accessed from the main deck via a “stairhouse.” The floor within the stairhouse has a hatch that leads to stairs which occupants use to descend into the CRC. This hatch locks automatically in the open position when fully opened. In addition, there will be an emergency hatch which opens directly into the main passenger cabin area. The CRC also has a maintenance access/ground loading door. This door is intended to be used to allow maintenance personnel and cargo handlers to enter the CRC from the cargo compartment when the airplane is not in flight. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, AEC must show that Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet

(1)the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. T00001SE or

(2)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 Type Certificate No. T00001SE are as follows: The certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes is 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-82, except for § 25.571(e)(1) which remains at Amendment 25-71, with exceptions. Refer to Type Certificate No. T00001SE, as applicable, for a complete description of the certification basis for this model, including certain special conditions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( *i.e.* , 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes 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, Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features While the installation of a CRC is not a new concept for large transport category airplanes, each CRC has unique features based on design, location, and use on the airplane. The CRC is novel in terms of part 25 in that it will be located below the passenger cabin floor in the forward cargo compartment of Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. Due to the novel or unusual features associated with the installation of a CRC, special conditions are considered necessary to provide a level of safety equal to that established by the airworthiness regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificates of these airplanes. These proposed special conditions do not negate the need to address other applicable part 25 regulations. Operational Evaluations and Approval These proposed special conditions specify requirements for design approvals ( *i.e.* , type design changes and supplemental type certificates) of CRCs administered by the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service. Prior to operational use of a CRC, the FAA's Flight Standards Service, Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG), must evaluate and approve the “basic suitability” of the CRC for occupation by crewmembers. If an operator wishes to utilize a CRC as “sleeping quarters,” the CRC must undergo an additional operational evaluation and approval. The CRC would be evaluated for compliance to §§ 121.485(a) and 121.523(b), with Advisory Circular 121-31, Flight Crew Sleeping Quarters and Rest Facilities, providing one method of compliance to these operating regulations. To obtain an operational evaluation, the type design holder must contact the AEG within the Flight Standards Service which has operational approval authority for the project. In this instance, it is the Seattle AEG. The type design holder must request a “basic suitability” evaluation or a “sleeping quarters” evaluation of the crew rest. The type design holder may make these requests concurrently with the demonstration of compliance with these special conditions. The results of these evaluations will be documented in the Boeing Model 777-200 Flight Standardization Board

(FSB)Report Appendix. In discussions with their FAA Principal Operating Inspector (POI), individual operators may reference these standardized evaluations as the basis for an operational approval, in lieu of an on-site operational evaluation. An operational re-evaluation and approval will be required for any changes to the approved CRC configuration, if the changes affect procedures for emergency egress of crewmembers, other safety procedures for crewmembers occupying the CRC, or training related to these procedures. The applicant for any such change is responsible for notifying the Seattle AEG that a new crew rest evaluation is required. All instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAW), including service bulletins, must be submitted to the Seattle AEG for approval acceptance before the FAA issues its approval of the modification. Discussion of Proposed Special Conditions No. 9 and 12 The following clarifies how proposed Special Condition No. 9 should be understood relative to the requirements of § 25.1439(a): Amendment 25-38 modified the requirements of § 25.1439(a) by adding, “In addition, protective breathing equipment must be installed in each isolated separate compartment in the airplane. Including upper and lower lobe galleys, in which crewmember occupancy is permitted during flight for the maximum number of crewmembers expected to be in the area during any operation.” The CRC is an isolated separate compartment, so § 25.1439(a) is applicable. However, the § 25.1439(a) PBE requirements for isolated separate compartments are not appropriate because the CRC is novel and unusual in terms of the number of occupants. In 1976 when Amendment 25-38 was adopted, small galleys were the only isolated compartments that had been certificated. Two crewmembers were the maximum expected to occupy those galleys. These proposed special conditions address a CRC, which can accommodate up to ten crewmembers. This large number of occupants in an isolated compartment was not envisioned at the time Amendment 25-38 was adopted. It is not appropriate for all occupants to don PBE in the event of a fire because the first action should be to leave the confined space unless the occupant is fighting the fire. Taking the time to don the PBE would prolong the time for the emergency evacuation of the occupants and possibly interfere with efforts to extinguish the fire. In regard to proposed Special Condition No. 12, the FAA considers that during the 1-minute smoke detection time, penetration of a small quantity of smoke from this forward lower lobe CRC design into an occupied area on this airplane configuration would be acceptable based upon the limitations placed in these proposed special conditions. The FAA determination considers that the proposed special conditions place sufficient restrictions in the quantity and type of material allowed in crew carry-on bags that the threat from a fire in this remote area would be equivalent to that experienced on the main cabin. Applicability As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes as modified by the AEC forward lower lobe CRC. Should AEC apply at a later date for a change to the supplemental type certificate to include another model listed on the same type certificate data sheet, incorporating the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant which applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these proposed special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes, modified by Aerocon Engineering Company. 1. Occupancy of the forward lower lobe crew rest compartment

(CRC)is limited to the total number of installed bunks and seats in each compartment. There must be an approved seat or Berth able to withstand the maximum flight loads when occupied for each occupant permitted in the CRC. The maximum occupancy is ten in the CRC.

(a)There must be appropriate placard(s) displayed in a conspicuous place at each entrance to the CRC to indicate:

(1)The maximum number of occupants allowed;

(2)That occupancy is restricted to crewmembers who are trained in the evacuation procedures for the CRC;

(3)That occupancy is prohibited during taxi, take-off and landing;

(4)That smoking is prohibited in the CRC;

(5)That hazardous quantities of flammable fluids, explosives, or other dangerous cargo are prohibited from the CRC; and

(6)That stowage in the CRC must be limited to emergency equipment, airplane-supplied equipment (e.g., bedding), and crew personal luggage; cargo or passenger baggage is not allowed.

(b)There must be at least one ashtray located conspicuously on or near the entry side of any entrance to the CRC.

(c)There must be a means to prevent passengers from entering the compartment in the event of an emergency or when no flight attendant is present.

(d)There must be a means for any door installed between the CRC and passenger cabin to be capable of being quickly opened from inside the compartment, even when crowding occurs at each side of the door.

(e)For all doors installed in the evacuation routes, there must be a means to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the compartment. If a locking mechanism is installed, it must be capable of being unlocked from the outside without the aid of special tools. The lock must not prevent opening from the inside of the compartment at any time. 2. There must be at least two emergency evacuation routes, each of which can be used by each occupant of the CRC to rapidly evacuate to the main cabin. The exit door/hatch for each route must be able to be closed for the main cabin after evacuation. In addition—

(a)The routes must be located with one at each end of the compartment, or with two having sufficient separation within the compartment and between the routes to minimize the possibility of an event (either inside or outside of the CRC) rendering both routes inoperative.

(b)The routes must be designed to minimize the possibility of blockage, which might result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons standing on top of or against the escape route. If an evacuation route utilizes an area where normal movement of passengers occurs, it must be demonstrated that passengers would not impede egress to the main deck. If a hatch is installed in an evacuation route, the point at which the evacuation route terminates in the passenger cabin should not be located where normal movement by passengers or crew occurs (main aisle, cross aisle, passageway or galley complex). If such a location cannot be avoided, special consideration must be taken to ensure that the hatch or door can be opened when a person, the weight of a ninety-fifth percentile male, is standing on the hatch or door. The use of evacuation routes must not be dependent on any powered device. If there is low headroom at or near an evacuation route, provisions must be made to prevent or to protect occupants (of the CRC) from head injury.

(c)Emergency evacuation procedures, including the emergency evacuation of an incapacitated occupant from the CRC, must be established. All of these procedures must be transmitted to all operators for incorporation into their training programs and appropriate operational manuals.

(d)There must be a limitation in the Airplane Flight Manual or other suitable means requiring that crewmembers be trained in the use of evacuation routes. 3. There must be a means for the evacuation of an incapacitated person (representative of a 95th percentile male) from the CRC to the passenger cabin floor. The evacuation must be demonstrated for all evacuation routes. A flight attendant or other crewmember (a total of one assistant within the CRC) may provide assistance in the evacuation. Additional assistance may be provided by up to three persons in the main passenger compartment. For evacuation routes having stairways, the additional assistants may descend down to one half the elevation change from the main deck to the lower deck compartment, or to the first landing, whichever is higher. 4. The following signs and placards must be provided in the CRC:

(a)At least one exit sign, located near each exit, meeting the requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i) at Amendment 25-58, except that a sign with reduced background area of no less than 5.3 square inches (excluding the letters) may be utilized, provided that it is installed such that the material surrounding the exit sign is light in color (e.g., white, cream, light beige). If the material surrounding the exit sign is not light in color, a sign with a minimum of a one-inch wide background border around the letters would also be acceptable;

(b)An appropriate placard located near each exit defining the location and the operating instructions for each evacuation route;

(c)Placards must be readable from a distance of 30 inches under emergency lighting conditions; and

(d)The exit handles and evacuation path operating instruction placards must be illuminated to at least 160 micro lamberts under emergency lighting conditions. 5. There must be a means in the event of failure of the aircraft's main power system, or of the normal CRC lighting system, for emergency illumination to be automatically provided for the CRC.

(a)This emergency illumination must be independent of the main lighting system.

(b)The sources of general cabin illumination may be common to both the emergency and the main lighting systems if the power supply to the emergency lighting system is independent of the power supply to the main lighting system.

(c)The illumination level must be sufficient for the occupants of the CRC to locate and transfer to the main passenger cabin floor by means of each evacuation route.

(d)The illumination level must be sufficient with the privacy curtains in the closed position for each occupant of the CRC to locate a deployed oxygen mask. 6. There must be means for two-way voice communications between crewmembers on the flightdeck and occupants of the CRC. There must also be public address

(PA)system microphones at each flight attendant seat required to be near a floor level exit in the passenger cabin per § 25.785(h) at Amendment 25-51. The PA system must allow two-way voice communications between flight attendants and the occupants of the CRC, except that one microphone may serve more than one exit provided the proximity of the exits allows unassisted verbal communication between seated flight attendants. 7. There must be a means for manual activation of an aural emergency alarm system, audible during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the flightdeck and at each pair of required floor level emergency exits to alert occupants of the CRC of an emergency situation. Use of a public address or crew interphone system will be acceptable, provided an adequate means of differentiating between normal and emergency communications is incorporated. The system must be powered in flight for at least ten minutes after the shutdown or failure of all engines and auxiliary power units

(APU)or the disconnection or failure of all power sources which are dependent on the continued operation of the engines and APUs. 8. There must be a means, readily detectable by seated or standing occupants of the CRC, which indicates when seat belts should be fastened. In the event there are no seats, at least one means must be provided to cover anticipated turbulence (e.g., sufficient handholds). Seat belt type restraints must be provided for berths and must be compatible for the sleeping attitude during cruise conditions. There must be a placard on each berth requiring that seat belts must be fastened when occupied. If compliance with any of the other requirements of these special conditions is predicated on specific head location, there must be a placard identifying the head position. 9. In lieu of the requirements specified in § 25.1439(a) at Amendment 25-38 that pertain to isolated compartments and to provide a level of safety equivalent to that which is provided occupants of a small isolated galley, the following equipment must be provided in the CRC:

(a)At least one approved hand-held fire extinguisher appropriate for the kinds of fires likely to occur;

(b)Two PBE devices approved to Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C116 or equivalent, suitable for fire fighting, or one PBE for each hand-held fire extinguisher, whichever is greater; and

(c)One flashlight. Note: Additional PBEs and fire extinguishers in specific locations, (beyond the minimum numbers prescribed in Special Condition No. 9) may be required as a result of any egress analysis accomplished to satisfy Special Condition No. 2(a). 10. A smoke or fire detection system (or systems) must be provided that monitors each occupiable area within the CRC, including those areas partitioned by curtains. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. Each system (or systems) must provide:

(a)A visual indication to the flightdeck within one minute after the start of a fire;

(b)An aural warning in the CRC; and

(c)A warning in the main passenger cabin. This warning must be readily detectable by a flight attendant, taking into consideration the positioning of flight attendants throughout the main passenger compartment during various phases of flight. 11. The CRC must be designed such that fires within the compartment can be controlled without a crewmember having to enter the compartment, or the design of the access provisions must allow crewmembers equipped for fire fighting to have unrestricted access to the compartment. The time for a crewmember on the main deck to react to the fire alarm, to don the fire fighting equipment, and to gain access must not exceed the time for the compartment to become smoke-filled, making it difficult to locate the fire source. 12. There must be a means provided to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent originating in the CRC from entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers. This means must include the time periods during the evacuation of the CRC and, if applicable, when accessing the CRC to manually fight a fire. Smoke entering any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers when the access to the CRC is opened, during an emergency evacuation, must dissipate within five minutes after the access to the CRC is closed. Hazardous quantities of smoke may not enter any other compartment occupied by crewmembers or passengers during subsequent access to manually fight a fire in the CRC (the amount of smoke entrained by a firefighter exiting the CRC through the access is not considered hazardous). During the 1-minute smoke detection time, penetration of a small quantity of smoke from the CRC into an occupied area is acceptable. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. If a built-in fire extinguishing system is used in lieu of manual fire fighting, then the fire extinguishing system must be designed so that no hazardous quantities of extinguishing agent will enter other compartments occupied by passengers or crew. The system must have adequate capacity to suppress any fire occurring in the CRC, considering the fire threat, volume of the compartment and the ventilation rate. 13. There must be a supplemental oxygen system equivalent to that provided for main deck passengers for each seat and berth in the CRC. The system must provide an aural and visual warning to warn the occupants of the CRC to don oxygen masks in the event of decompression. The warning must activate before the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 15,000 feet. The aural warning must sound continuously for a minimum of five minutes or until a reset push button in the CRC is depressed. Procedures for crew rest occupants to follow in the event of decompression must be established. These procedures must be transmitted to the operators for incorporation into their training programs and appropriate operational manuals. 14. The following requirements apply to CRCs that are divided into several sections by the installation of curtains or partitions:

(a)To warn sleeping occupants, there must be an aural alert that can be heard in each section of the CRC and that accompanies automatic presentation of supplemental oxygen masks. A visual indicator that occupants must don an oxygen mask is required in each section where seats or berths are not installed. A minimum of two supplemental oxygen masks is required for each seat or berth. There must also be a means by which the oxygen masks can be manually deployed from the flightdeck.

(b)A placard is required adjacent to each curtain that visually divides or separates, for privacy purposes, the CRC into small sections. The placard must require that the curtain remains open when the private section it creates is unoccupied.

(c)For each section of the CRC created by the installation of a curtain, the following requirements of these special conditions must be met both with the curtain open and with the curtain closed:

(1)Emergency illumination (Special Condition No. 5);

(2)Emergency alarm system (Special Condition No. 7);

(3)Seat belt fasten signal or return to seat signal as applicable (Special Condition No. 8); and

(4)The smoke or fire detection system (Special Condition No. 10).

(d)Crew rest compartments visually divided to the extent that evacuation could be affected must have exit signs that direct occupants to the primary stairway exit. The exit signs must be provided in each separate section of the CRC, and must meet the requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i) at Amendment 25-58. An exit sign with reduced background area as described in Special Condition No. 4(a) may be used to meet this requirement.

(e)For sections within a CRC that are created by the installation of a partition with a door separating the sections, the following requirements of these special conditions must be met both with the door open and with the door closed:

(1)There must be a secondary evacuation route from each section to the main deck, or alternatively, it must be shown that any door between the sections has been designed to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the compartment. Removal of an incapacitated occupant within this area must be considered. A secondary evacuation route from a small room designed for only one occupant for short time duration, such as a changing area or lavatory, is not required. However, removal of an incapacitated occupant within this area must be considered.

(2)Any door between the sections must be shown to be openable when crowded against, even when crowding occurs at each side of the door.

(3)There may be no more than one door between any seat or berth and the primary stairway exit.

(4)There must be exit signs in each section meeting the requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i) at Amendment 25-58 that direct occupants to the primary stairway exit. An exit sign with reduced background area as described in Special Condition No. 4(a) may be used to meet this requirement.

(5)Special Conditions No. 5 (emergency illumination), No. 7 (emergency alarm system), No. 8 (fasten seat belt signal or return to seat signal as applicable) and No. 10 (smoke or fire detection system) must be met both with the door open and with the door closed.

(6)Special Conditions No. 6 (two-way voice communication) and No. 9 (emergency fire fighting and protective equipment) must be met independently for each separate section except for lavatories or other small areas that are not intended to be occupied for extended periods of time. 15. Where a waste disposal receptacle is fitted, it must be equipped with a built-in fire extinguisher designed to discharge automatically upon occurrence of a fire in the receptacle. 16. Materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces applied to the materials) must comply with the flammability requirements of § 25.853 at Amendment 25-72. Mattresses must comply with the flammability requirements of § 25.853(b) and

(c)at Amendment 25-72. 17. All lavatories within the CRC are required to meet the same requirements as those for a lavatory installed on the main deck except with regard to Special Condition No.10 for smoke detection. 18. When a CRC is installed or enclosed as a removable module in part of a cargo compartment or is located directly adjacent to a cargo compartment without an intervening cargo compartment wall, the following apply:

(a)Any wall of the module (container) forming part of the boundary of the reduced cargo compartment, subject to direct flame impingement from a fire in the cargo compartment and including any interface item between the module (container) and the airplane structure or systems, must meet the applicable requirements of § 25.855 at Amendment 25-72.

(b)Means must be provided so that the fire protection level of the cargo compartment meets the applicable requirements of § 25.855 at Amendment 25-72, § 25.857 at Amendment 25-60 and § 25.858 at Amendment 25-54 when the module (container) is not installed.

(c)Use of each emergency evacuation route must not require occupants of the CRC compartment to enter the cargo compartment in order to return to the passenger compartment.

(d)The aural warning in Special Condition No. 7 must sound in the CRC. 19. Means must be provided to prevent access into the Class C cargo compartment during all airplane flight operations and to ensure that the maintenance door is closed during all airplane flight operations. 20. All enclosed stowage compartments within the CRC that are not limited to stowage of emergency equipment or airplane-supplied equipment (e.g., bedding) must meet the design criteria given in the table below. As indicated by the table below, this special condition does not address enclosed stowage compartments greater than 200 ft 3 in interior volume. The in-flight accessibility of very large enclosed stowage compartments and the subsequent impact on the crewmembers ability to effectively reach any part of the compartment with the contents of a hand fire extinguisher will require additional fire protection considerations similar to those required for inaccessible compartments such as Class C cargo compartments. Stowage Compartment Interior Volumes Fire protection features Less than 25 ft 3 25 ft 3 to 57 ft 3 57 ft 3 to 200 ft 3 Materials of Construction 1 Yes Yes Yes. Detectors 2 No Yes Yes Liner 3 No No Yes. Locating Device 4 No Yes Yes. 1 Material—The material used to construct each enclosed stowage compartment must at least be fire resistant and must meet the flammability standards established for interior components per the requirements of § 25.853. For compartments less than 25 ft 3 in interior volume, the design must ensure the ability to contain a fire likely to occur within the compartment under normal use. 2 Detectors—Enclosed stowage compartments equal to or exceeding 25 ft 3 in interior volume must be provided with a smoke or fire detection system to ensure that a fire can be detected within a one-minute detection time. Flight tests must be conducted to show compliance with this requirement. Each system (or systems) must provide:

(a)A visual indication in the flightdeck within one minute after the start of a fire;

(b)An aural warning in the CRC; and

(AD)for all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine whether certain main landing gear

(MLG)drag stay units

(DSUs)are installed. This proposed AD would also require an ultrasonic inspection to determine if certain tubes are installed in the affected DSUs of the MLG, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report that, due to fatigue cracking from an improperly machined radius of the inner tube, a drag stay broke, and, consequently, led to the collapse of the MLG during landing. We are proposing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 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 Fokker Services B.V., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. 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-2006-25086; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-019-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 The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the airworthiness authority for the Netherlands, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes. The CAA-NL advises that it has received a report that, due to a broken drag stay, the main landing gear

(MLG)on one airplane collapsed during landing. The broken drag stay is attributed to fatigue cracking, which originated at the lower side of a transition from a smaller internal diameter on the upper piece to a larger internal diameter on the lower piece. The apparent cause of such fatigue cracking has been attributed to an improperly machined radius of the inner tube of the drag stay. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG. The CAA-NL states that Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 93-169/2 (A), dated April 29, 1994, was issued following a similar incident to address the identified unsafe condition on all F27 airplanes. However, the related Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-167, dated November 19, 1993, contained a statement that may have led to confusion whether Model F.27 Mark 500 airplanes were affected by the actions specified in the service bulletin. Thus, Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes may be operating without fully complying with actions necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. Other Relevant Rulemaking On February 7, 1997, we issued AD 97-04-08, amendment 39-9932 (62 FR 7924, February 21, 1997), for certain Fokker Model F27 Mark 050, 100, 200, 300, 400, 600, and 700 airplanes. That AD is parallel to Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 93-169/2 (A), dated April 29, 1994, and does not include Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes in its applicability. AD 97-04-08 requires an ultrasonic inspection to determine if certain tubes are installed in the drag stay units of the main landing gear (MLG), and various follow-on actions. That AD resulted from a report that, due to fatigue cracking from an improperly machined radius of the inner tube, a drag stay broke, and, consequently, led to the collapse of the MLG during landing. We issued that AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V has issued Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171, dated December 16, 2004 (for Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes). The service bulletin describes procedures for performing an inspection of the MLG drag stay units

(DSUs)in accordance with Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993. Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletins 32-82W and 32-169B describe procedures for performing an ultrasonic inspection to determine if a tube having part number (P/N) 200485300 with a straight bore, or a tube having P/N 200259300 with a change in section (stepped bore), is installed in the DSUs of the MLG. The service bulletins also describe procedures for related investigative actions and corrective actions, including ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the DSUs, rework and re-identification of certain tubes, replacement of certain DSUs with new/re-identified DSUs, and repetitive ultrasonic inspections of certain DSUs. Both service bulletins include the ultrasonic inspection to determine P/Ns for DSUs having P/N 200485001. Service bulletin 32-82W also addresses the ultrasonic inspection for DSUs having P/N 200684001. Service Bulletin 32-169B also addresses the ultrasonic inspection for DSUs having P/N 200261001. CAA-NL mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive NL-2005-003, dated April 29, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands 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, CAA-NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA-NL's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes 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 2 $80 $160 7 $1,120 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): **Fokker Services B.V.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25086; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-019-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 21, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Fokker Model F27 Mark 500 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that, due to fatigue cracking from an improperly machined radius of the inner tube, a drag stay broke, and, consequently, led to the collapse of the MLG during landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity or collapse of the MLG. 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. Inspections of the DSUs

(f)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect main landing gear

(MLG)drag stay units

(DSU)to determine whether Dowty Aerospace is the manufacturer and before further flight inspect Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs to determine whether part number (P/N) 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, or 200684002 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of these inspections if the manufacturer and P/N of the MLG DSU can be conclusively determined from that review. For airplanes equipped with MLG DSUs other than Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs, and for airplanes equipped with Dowty Aerospace MLG DSUs having P/Ns other than P/N 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, and 200684002, no further action is required by this AD, except as specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD.

(g)For airplanes equipped with DSUs having P/N 200261001, 200485001, or 200684001: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic inspection to determine if a tube having P/N 200485300 with a straight bore, or a tube having P/N 200259300 with a change in section (stepped bore), is installed on the DSUs of the MLG, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171, dated December 16, 2004. Note 1: Fokker Service Bulletin F27/32-171, dated December 16, 2004, references Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; and Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable, as appropriates sources of service information for inspecting MLG DSUs.

(h)If any tube having P/N 200485300 with a straight bore is found installed during the inspections required by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Before further flight, re-identify the DSU with P/N 200261004, 200485004, or 200684004, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable. After re-identifying the DSU, no further action is required by this AD for that DSU; however airplanes are still subject to the requirements specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD.

(i)If any tube having P/N 200259300 with a change in section (stepped bore) is found installed during the inspection required by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Before further flight, re-identify the DSU in accordance with paragraphs 2.A.(4)(a) and 2.A.(4)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable. Following accomplishment of the re-identification, before further flight, do the inspection specified in paragraph

(j)of this AD. Ultrasonic Inspection for Cracking

(j)For airplanes equipped with re-identified DSUs having 200261002, 200485002, 200684002, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking in the re-identified DSUs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; or Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated July 29, 1994, and including Appendix B, Revision 1, dated November 10, 1993; as applicable.

(1)For airplanes equipped with any DSU re-identified as P/N 200684003, 200261003, or 200485003: If no crack is detected, no further action is required by this AD for that DSU; however airplanes are still subject to the requirements specified in paragraph

(k)of this AD.

(2)For airplanes equipped with any DSU re-identified as P/N 200684002, 200261002, or 200485002: If no crack is detected, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i)Repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles until the actions specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this AD are done.

(ii)At the next MLG overhaul but no later than 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, rework and re-identify the DSU as P/N 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, as applicable, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.

(3)If any crack is detected and the crack signal indication of any DSU tube is greater than or equal to 80 percent, before further flight, replace the DSU with a re-identified DSU having P/N 200261004, 200485004, 200684004, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.

(4)If any crack is detected and the crack signal indication of any DSU tube is greater than zero percent but less than 80 percent, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD.

(i)Repeat the ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles until the actions specified in paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this AD are done.

(ii)At the next MLG overhaul but no later than 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, replace the DSU with a DSU having P/N 200261004, 200485004, 200684004, 200261003, 200485003, or 200684003, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Parts Installation

(k)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a MLG DSU, P/N 200261001, 200261002, 200485001, 200485002, 200684001, or 200684002, on any airplane, except as specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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)Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-003, dated April 29, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9714 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25088; Directorate Identifier 2006 NM-085-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires an inspection for evidence of chafing between the hydraulic flexible hose and the ram air turbine

(RAT)hub, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would extend the applicability to include all A300-600 series airplanes that are equipped with a certain RAT. This proposed AD results from reports of holes in the RAT hub cover. We are proposing this AD to prevent a hole in the RAT hub cover. A hole in the RAT hub cover could allow water to enter the RAT governing mechanism, freeze during flight, and jam the governing mechanism. In addition, the metal particles that result from chafing between the hydraulic flexible hose and the RAT could mix with the lubricant grease and degrade the governing mechanism. In an emergency, a jammed or degraded RAT could result in its failure to deploy, loss of hydraulic pressure or electrical power to the airplane, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-2125; fax

(425)227-1149. 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 “Docket No. FAA-2006-25088; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-085-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

(RAT)hub, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from reports of holes in the RAT hub cover. We issued that AD to prevent a hole in the RAT hub cover. A hole in the RAT hub cover could allow water to enter the RAT governing mechanism, freeze during flight, and jam the governing mechanism. In addition, the metal particles that result from chafing between the hydraulic flexible hose and the RAT could mix with the lubricant grease and degrade the governing mechanism. In an emergency, a jammed or degraded RAT could result in its failure to deploy, loss of hydraulic pressure or electrical power to the airplane, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2005-15-05, the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, reported that a hole in the RAT hub cover was reported on an airplane that was not included in the effectivity of French airworthiness directive F-2004-133, dated August 4, 2004. French airworthiness directive F-2004-133 parallels AD 2005-15-05. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-29-6054, Revision 02, dated January 12, 2006. Airbus Service Bulletin A300-29-6054, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 4, 2004, was referenced as the appropriate source of service information for doing the action required by AD 2005-15-05. The procedures in Revision 02 and Revision 01 are essentially the same. Revision 02 extends the effectivity to include all A300-600 series airplanes that are equipped with a Hamilton Sundstrand RAT. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The FCAA mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2006-035, dated February 1, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2005-15-05 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance After the original NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. 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 (required by AD 2005-15-05) 1 $80 $80 120 $9,600 Rework binding (required by AD 2005-15-05) 1 80 80 120 9,600 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 removing amendment 39-14194 (70 FR 42267, July 22, 2005) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25088; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-085-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 21, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-15-05. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with a Hamilton Sundstrand Ram Air Turbine (RAT). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of holes in the ram air turbine

(RAT)hub cover. We are issuing this AD to prevent a hole in the RAT hub cover. A hole in the RAT hub cover could allow water to enter the RAT governing mechanism, freeze during flight, and jam the governing mechanism. In addition, the metal particles that result from chafing between the hydraulic flexible hose and the RAT could mix with the lubricant grease and degrade the governing mechanism. In an emergency, a jammed or degraded RAT could result in its failure to deploy, loss of hydraulic pressure or electrical power to the airplane, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. 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. Restatement of the Requirements of AD 2005-15-05 With Compliance Times for New Airplanes Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions

(f)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD: Do a one-time detailed inspection for evidence of chafing between the hydraulic flexible hose and the RAT hub, and any applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-29-6054, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 4, 2004; or Revision 02, dated January 12, 2006. After the effective date of this AD, only Revision 02 may be used. Any applicable corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight. Where the service bulletin specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and to submit damaged RATs to the vendor or a repair station, this AD does not include those requirements.

(1)For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 0812, 0813, 0815 through 0818 inclusive, 0821 through 0828 inclusive, and 0836 through 0838 inclusive: Within 2,500 flight hours after August 26, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-15-05).

(2)For airplanes not identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Within 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Actions Accomplished Previously

(g)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-29-6054, excluding Appendix 01, dated June 8, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2005-15-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information

(i)French airworthiness directive F-2006-035, dated February 1, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 14, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9715 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25089; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-091-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes. The existing AD currently requires an initial general visual inspection of the power feeder cables of the integrated drive generator

(IDG)and the fuel feed lines of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings for proper clearance and damage; corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive general visual inspections and a terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would continue to require the existing actions, and for certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require installation of new clamps on the power feeder cables of the IDG of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3. This proposed AD results from reports of IDG power feeder cables riding against structure and fuel lines in the No. 1 and No. 3 pylons. We are proposing this AD to prevent potential chafing of the power feeder cables of the IDG in engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings, and consequent arcing on the fuel lines in the engine pylons and possible fuel fire. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone

(562)627-5350; fax

(562)627-5210. 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 “Docket No. FAA-2006-25089; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-091-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or may can visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . 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

(IDG)and the fuel feed lines of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings for proper clearance and damage; corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive general visual inspections and a terminating action for the repetitive inspections. That AD resulted from the FAA's practice of re-examining all aspects of the service experience of a particular aircraft whenever an accident occurs. We became aware of reports indicating that the power feeder cables of the integrated drive generator

(IDG)are riding against structure and fuel lines in engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings of certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent potential chafing of the power feeder cables of the IDG in engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings, and consequent arcing of the fuel lines in the engine pylons and possible fuel fire. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2004-01-17, the manufacturer has notified us that certain airplanes with 4/0 size cables installed have clamps too small to install over the 4/0 size cables. Those airplanes need to have larger clamps installed. The larger clamps are needed to prevent chafing of the larger power feeder cables of the IDG. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005. Revision 3 of the ASB is essentially the same as Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002, which is the appropriate source of service information for AD 2004-01-17. In addition to the actions specified in Revision 02 of the ASB, Revision 3 of the ASB describes general visual inspections for proper clearance and damage of the power feeder cables of the IDG and the fuel feed lines of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings for certain airplanes, and installing larger clamps on the power feeder cables of the IDG of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 for airplanes with 4/0 size cables. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. For certain airplanes, the ASB also specifies concurrent or prior accomplishment of BFGoodrich Aerospace Service Bulletin MD-11 54-174, dated May 27, 1993, which describes installation of the IDG harness support brackets. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2004-01-17 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. For airplanes having 4/0 size cables, this proposed AD also would require installation of a larger clamp on the power feeder cables of the IDG. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2004-01-17. Since AD 2004-01-17 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2004-01-17 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph

(a)Paragraph

(f)Paragraph

(b)Paragraph

(g)Paragraph

(c)Paragraph

(h)Paragraph

(d)Paragraph

(i)Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance There are about 195 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 98 Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspections that are required by AD 2004-01-17 and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The new proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new inspections specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators is $7,840, or $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle. The new proposed terminating action would take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The vendor states that it will supply the parts at no cost to the operator. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed terminating action specified in this proposed AD for U.S. operators is $31,360, or $320 per airplane. 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 removing amendment 39-13431 (69 FR 2657, January 20, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas** : Docket No. FAA-2006-25089; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-091-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 7, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-01-17. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of integrated drive generator

(IDG)power feeder cables riding against structure and fuel lines in the No. 1 and No. 3 pylons. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential chafing of the power feeder cables of the IDG in engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings, and consequent arcing on the fuel lines in the engine pylons and possible fuel fire. 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. Requirements of AD 2004-01-17 Note 1: Boeing has issued Information Notice MD11-54A011 R02 IN 02, dated July 11, 2002. The information notice informs operators of a typographical error for the string tie part number (P/N) specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002. The service bulletin specifies string tie P/N 190L0F21G/A; the correct P/N is 109 LOF 21G/A. Initial Inspection

(f)Within 30 days after February 24, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-01-17), do a general visual inspection of the power feeder cables of the IDG and the fuel feed lines of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings for proper clearance and damage, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Condition 1: Proper Clearance and No Damage

(g)If proper clearance exists and no damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, do the action(s) specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005.

(1)For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD every 6 months until the modification required by paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable, has been done.

(2)For Group 1 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after February 24, 2004, install the brackets to support the IDG harness, and install new clamps on the power feeder cables of the IDG of the No. 1 and No. 3 pylons.

(3)For Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after February 24, 2004, replace the existing fairlead with a new clamp, and install new tape. Condition 2: Improper Clearance and No Damage

(h)If improper clearance exists and no damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, do the action(s) specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005.

(1)For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Before further flight, reposition cables, and repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD every 6 months until the modification required by paragraph (h)(2) or (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, has been done.

(i)If improper clearance exists and any damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, do the action(s) specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 02, dated May 31, 2002, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005.

(1)For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Before further flight, reposition cables; repair damage or replace damaged cables or fuel feed lines with new or serviceable cables or fuel feed lines; and repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD every 6 months until the modification required by paragraph (i)(2) or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, has been done.

(3)For Group 2 airplanes identified in the service bulletin: Within 18 months after February 24, 2004, replace the existing fairlead with a new clamp, and install new tape. New Requirements of This AD General Visual Inspection

(j)For airplanes identified as Group 1, configurations 3 and 4, and Group 2, configuration 2, in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection for proper clearance and damage of the power feeder cables of the IDG and the fuel feed lines of engine pylons No. 1 and No. 3 on the wings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing ASB MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005. Condition 1: Proper Clearance and No Damage

(k)For airplanes identified as Group 1, configurations 3 and 4, and Group 2, configuration 2, in Boeing ASB MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005: If proper clearance exists and no damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing ASB MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005. Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (k)(2) or (k)(3) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(1)For Group 1 airplanes, configurations 3 and 4, and Group 2, configuration 2: Repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, until the actions specified in paragraph (k)(2) or (k)(3) of this AD, as applicable, are accomplished.

(2)For Group 1 airplanes, configuration 3: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install IDG harness support brackets and modify the IDG power feeder cable installations.

(3)For Group 1 airplanes, configuration 4, and Group 2, configuration 2: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the IDG power feeder cable installations. Condition 2: Improper Clearance and No Damage

(l)For airplanes identified as Group 1, configurations 3 and 4, and Group 2, configuration 2, in Boeing ASB MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005: If improper clearance exists and no damage is detected during any inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing ASB MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005. Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(1)Before further flight, reposition the cables. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, until the actions specified by (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD, as applicable, are accomplished.

(2)For Group 1 airplanes, configuration 3: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install IDG harness support brackets and modify the IDG power feeder cable installations.

(3)For Group 1 airplanes, configuration 4, and Group 2 airplanes, configuration 2: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the IDG power feeder cable installations. Condition 3: Improper Clearance and Damage Detected

(m)For airplanes identified as Group 1, configurations 3 and 4, and Group 2, configuration 2, in Boeing ASB MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005: If improper clearance exists and there is any damage to the cables, structure, or fuel feed line, do the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(1), (m)(2), and (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing ASB MD11-54A011, Revision 3, dated November 9, 2005. Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(2) or (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(1)Before further flight, reposition cables and repair damage or replace damaged cables or fuel feed lines with new or serviceable cables or fuel feed lines. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph

(j)of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, until the actions specified by paragraph (m)(2) or (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable, is accomplished.

(2)For Group 1 airplanes, configuration 3: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install IDG harness support brackets, and modify the IDG power feeder cable installations.

(3)For Group 1 airplanes, configuration 4, and Group 2 airplanes, configuration 2: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the IDG power feeder cable installations. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2004-01-17, amendment 39-13431, are not approved as AMOCs with this AD.

(4)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9718 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25087; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-053-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to all Boeing Model 747 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection to determine whether the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear has certain part numbers (P/Ns), and replacement of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear with a new, improved, or reworked part if necessary. The existing AD also requires removal of the load evening system, if such a system is installed. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would require an additional one-time inspection to determine whether the outer cylinder has a certain other P/N. For those certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require replacement of the outer cylinder with a reworked or new, improved part and related investigative/corrective actions, if necessary. This proposed AD results from identification of an additional unsafe part. We are proposing this AD to prevent fracture of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear, which could result in collapse of the wing landing gear. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Kusz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)917-6432; fax

(425)917-6590. 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 “Docket No. FAA-2006-25087; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-053-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or may can visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . 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 On July 27, 2004, we issued AD 2004-16-05, amendment 39-13761 (69 FR 48359, August 10, 2004), for all Boeing Model 747 airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection to determine whether the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear has certain part numbers (P/Ns), and replacement of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear with a new, improved, or reworked part if necessary. That AD also requires removal of the load evening system, if such a system is installed. That AD resulted from reports that the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear was found cracked or fractured on Model 747 airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent fracture of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear, which could result in collapse of the wing landing gear. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2004-16-05, Boeing has published Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006, to identify an outer cylinder, P/N 65B01382-( ), which was inadvertently omitted from the original issue of the service bulletin, dated November 30, 2000. We referenced the original service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the inspection and replacement required by the existing AD. (The procedures in Revision 1 are essentially the same as those in the original service bulletin.) P/N 65B01382-( ) has chrome plating on its inner surface, similar to the other unsafe parts identified in the original service bulletin and existing AD. Therefore, P/N 65B01382-( ) is also subject to the same unsafe condition addressed by the existing AD. Since P/N 65B01382-( ) was fitted exclusively to Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, and 747SR series airplanes, this NPRM proposes to require an additional one-time inspection to determine the P/Ns of the outer cylinder of the wing landing only on these airplanes. For any of these airplanes equipped with a load evening system, this NPRM would also require removal of that system before replacing P/N 65B01382-( ) with a reworked or new, improved part if applicable. We have added that requirement to paragraphs

(h)and

(j)of this NPRM. (Paragraph

(h)of the NPRM corresponds to paragraph

(c)of the existing AD.) Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a one-time inspection to determine the P/N of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear. The service bulletin also describes procedures for replacing the outer cylinder with a reworked or new part and doing related investigative and corrective actions, if an outer cylinder having P/N 65B01212-( ), 65B01382-( ), 65B01430-3, or 65B01430-4 is installed on an airplane. The related investigative actions include the following: • Doing a nital etch test of the upper inner surface of the outer cylinder for chrome plating. • Doing a magnetic particle inspection of the outer cylinder for any cracking. • Doing a nital etch inspection of inner surface of the outer cylinder for heat damage. • Marking the outer cylinder to indicate that part has been reworked. The corrective actions include the following: • Removing any chrome plating found on the upper inner surface of the outer cylinder. • Reworking the outer cylinder to remove any cracking or heat damage. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2004-16-05 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, Revision 1, specifies that operators may accomplish certain related investigative and corrective actions using an “approved equivalent procedure.” However, this proposed AD would require operators to accomplish the actions using the procedures specified in a certain chapter(s) of the Boeing 747 SOPM or OHM, as applicable. An “approved equivalent procedure” may be used only if approved as an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(m)of this AD. Changes to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2004-16-05. Since AD 2004-16-05 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2004-16-05 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph

(a)Paragraph (f). Paragraph

(b)Paragraph (g). Paragraph

(c)Paragraph (h). Paragraph

(d)Paragraph (i). We have added reference to Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472 in paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this proposed AD, since the procedures in Revision 1 are essentially the same as those in the original issue of the service bulletin. We have revised the “Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)” paragraph in this proposed AD to clarify the delegation authority for Authorized Representatives for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization. We have also revised this proposed AD to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,106 Model 747 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. Of those airplanes, there are about 66 Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, and 747SR series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet that would be subject to the new proposed actions. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection for all airplanes (required by AD 2004-16-05) 1 None $80 256 $20,480 Removal of the load evening system (required by AD 2004-16-05) 240 $2,392 21,592 256 5,527,552 Inspection for certain airplanes (new proposed action) 1 None 80 21 1,680 If required, the chrome removal and inspections for cracking or heat damage would take about 12 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of these actions is $960 per airplane. 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 removing amendment 39-13761 (69 FR 48359, August 10, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25087; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-053-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 7, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-16-05. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from identification of an additional unsafe outer cylinder of the wing landing gear. We are issuing this AD to prevent fracture of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear, which could result in collapse of the wing landing gear. 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. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004-16-05 Inspection to Determine Part Number

(f)Within 36 months after September 14, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-16-05), perform a one-time inspection to determine the part number (P/N) of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear on both sides of the airplane, per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, dated November 30, 2000, or Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006. Instead of inspecting the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear, a review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable if the detailed P/N of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear (not just a higher-level assembly) can be positively determined from that review.

(1)If no outer cylinder having P/N 65B01212-( ) (where “( )” is any dash number of that part number), 65B01430-3, or 65B01430-4 is found: No further action is required by this paragraph.

(2)If any outer cylinder having P/N 65B01212-( ) (where “( )” is any dash number of that part number), 65B01430-3, or 65B01430-4 is found: Accomplish paragraph

(g)of this AD. Replacement of Outer Cylinder

(g)For any outer cylinder identified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD: Within 36 months after September 14, 2004, replace the outer cylinder on the wing landing gear with a new, improved part or a part that has been inspected and reworked per the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, dated November 30, 2000; or Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006, except as provided by paragraph

(k)of this AD. The rework procedures described in the service bulletin, if accomplished, include performing a one-time nital etch inspection of the upper inner surface of the outer cylinder for chrome plating; removing any chrome plating that is present; performing a one-time magnetic particle inspection for cracking of the outer cylinder; performing a nital etch inspection for heat damage of the outer cylinder; reworking the outer cylinder, as applicable; and marking the outer cylinder to indicate that the service bulletin has been accomplished. Removal of the Load Evening System

(h)For airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2131, Revision 2, dated March 15, 1974: Before performing the requirements of paragraph

(g)or

(j)of this AD, as applicable, remove the load evening system installed on the wing landing gear, per the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. New Requirements of This AD Inspection To Determine Outer Cylinder P/N on Certain Airplanes

(i)For Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, and 747SR series airplanes: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time inspection to determine the P/N of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear on both sides of the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006. Instead of inspecting the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear, a review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable if the detailed P/N of the outer cylinder of the wing landing gear (not just a higher-level assembly) can be positively determined from that review.

(1)If no outer cylinder having P/N 65B01382-( ) is found: No further action is required by this paragraph.

(2)If any outer cylinder having P/N 65B01382-( ) is found: Accomplish paragraph

(j)of this AD. Replacement of a Certain Outer Cylinder

(j)For any outer cylinder identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the outer cylinder on the wing landing gear with a reworked or new, improved part, and do the related investigative actions and all applicable corrective actions before further flight after the replacement, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in 3.B.2 and 3.B.3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006; except as provided by paragraph

(k)of this AD. If applicable, do the actions specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD before accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph. Exception to Revision 1 of the Service Bulletin

(k)Where Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006, specifies that the related investigative and corrective actions may be accomplished using an operator's “equivalent procedure:” The related investigative and corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with the chapter(s) of the applicable Boeing 747 SOPM or OHM specified in the service bulletin. Parts Installation

(l)As of September 14, 2004, no person may install, on any airplane, an outer cylinder of the wing landing gear if the outer cylinder has P/N 65B01212-( ), 65B01430-3, or 65B01430-4, unless the outer cylinder has been inspected, reworked, and marked to indicate that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, dated November 30, 2000, or Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006, has been accomplished. As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an outer cylinder, P/N 65B01382-( ), of the wing landing gear on any airplane, unless the outer cylinder has been inspected, reworked, and marked to indicate that Boeing Service Bulletin 747-32-2472, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2006, has been accomplished. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle 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.

(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(4)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2004-16-05, amendment 39-13761, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (f), (g), and

(h)of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9721 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 305 RIN 3084-AA74 Appliance Labeling Rule AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the Commission to issue labeling requirements for the electricity used by ceiling fans to circulate air. The Commission is seeking public comment on proposed energy labeling requirements for these products. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Ceiling Fan Labeling, Matter No. R611018” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered, with two complete copies, to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex L), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. 1 Any request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, must accompany the comment and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following the instructions on the web-based form at *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-fan.* To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on that web-based form. You also may visit *http://www.regulations.gov* to read this proposed Rule, and may file an electronic comment through that Web site. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. Comments on any proposed filing, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements that are subject to paperwork burden review under the Paperwork Reduction Act should additionally be submitted to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted via facsimile to

(202)395-6974 because U.S. postal mail at the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) is subject to lengthy delays due to heightened security precautions. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of all interested parties, the Commission has not scheduled a public workshop or any other oral hearing. Interested parties may request an opportunity to present views orally. If such a request is made, the Commission will publish a document in the **Federal Register** , stating the time and place for such oral presentation(s) and describing the procedures that will be followed. Interested parties who wish to present oral views must submit, on or before September 8, 2006, a written comment that describes the issues on which the party wishes to speak. If there is no oral hearing, the Commission will base its decision on the written rulemaking record. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome,

(202)326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 324 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”) (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), as amended, requires the FTC to prescribe labeling rules for the disclosure of estimated annual energy cost or alternative energy consumption information for a variety of products covered by the statute, including home appliances, lighting, and plumbing products. 2 The Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR part 305) implements the requirements of EPCA by directing manufacturers to disclose energy information about major household appliances. This information enables consumers to compare the energy use or efficiency of competing models. 3 When initially published in 1979, 4 the Rule applied to eight appliance categories: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water heaters, clothes washers, room air conditioners, and furnaces. Since then, the Commission has expanded the Rule's coverage to include central air conditioners, heat pumps, fluorescent lamp ballasts, plumbing products, lighting products, pool heaters, and some other types of water heaters. 5 As discussed in detail below, Congress has now directed the Commission to require labeling for ceiling fans. Before discussing the proposed Rule, this Notice first describes the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“EPACT”), ceiling fan uses, Energy Star specifications, and existing state labeling programs. 2 42 U.S.C. 6294. 3 More information about the Rule can be found at *http://www.ftc.gov/appliances.* 4 44 FR 66466 (November 19, 1979). 5 *See* 52 FR 46888 (December 10, 1987) (central air conditioners); 59 FR 49556 (September 28, 1994) (pool heaters); 54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989) (fluorescent lamp ballasts); 58 FR 54955 (October 25, 1993) (certain plumbing products); and 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994) (lighting products). A. Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 137 of EPACT (Pub. L. 109-58 (2005)) amends EPCA to include various requirements related to ceiling fans. Section 324(a)(2)(G)(i) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(G)(i)) requires the Commission to “issue, by rule, in accordance with this section, labeling requirements for the electricity used by ceiling fans to circulate air in a room.” 6 The rulemaking must be completed within 18 months. To implement this directive, the Commission is seeking comments on proposed labeling requirements for ceiling fans. 6 The Act does not authorize the Commission to require labeling for the energy use of light bulbs attached to ceiling fans. The statute directs the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to prescribe test procedures and energy conservation standards for ceiling fans. 7 ( *See* 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(16) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(v)). According to EPACT, the test procedure for ceiling fans must be based on the “Energy Star Testing Facility Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility and Performing the Solid State Test Method for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans, Version 1.1” (“Energy Star Guidance Manual”) published by the EPA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)). However, in issuing testing and conservation standards, DOE may exempt or set different standards for certain product classes if the primary standards are not technically feasible or economically justified. DOE may also establish separate or exempted product classes for highly decorative fans for which air movement performance is a secondary design feature. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)). 7 EPACT (42 U.S.C. 6292(ff)) also directs DOE to require that all ceiling fans manufactured after January 1, 2007 have fan speed controls separate from any lighting controls, adjustable speed controls (either more than 1 speed or variable speed), and reversible fan action capability (except for some exempted categories of fans). (10 CFR 430.32(s)). In developing labeling rules for products covered by EPCA (such as ceiling fans), the Commission must follow the requirements set out in section 324(c) of that law (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)). 8 Under that provision, labels must disclose the estimated annual operating cost determined in accordance with DOE test procedures unless otherwise indicated in the law. The Commission, however, may require a different measure of energy consumption if DOE determines that the cost disclosure is not technologically feasible, or the Commission determines such a disclosure is not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically feasible. In addition, labels must disclose information about the range of operating costs (or a different measure of energy consumption if required by the Commission). The Commission's labeling rules also must include a description of the applicable type or class of covered product, information about the range of operating costs or energy use, a description of applicable test procedures, a prototype label, and directions for displaying the label. 8 EPACT did not amend the list of covered products in EPCA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 6292) to include the new products added by the legislation such as ceiling fans, exit signs, and torchieres. Nevertheless, language elsewhere in EPACT ( *e.g.* , section 137(b)) makes it clear that Congress intended to treat these items as covered products. Accordingly, the Commission believes that ceiling fans are subject to EPCA requirements for covered products, such as energy range disclosures on labels required by section 324(c) and the reporting requirements of section 326(b). Additionally, EPCA authorizes the Commission to require the disclosure of energy information found on the label in any printed material displayed or distributed at the point of sale. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(4)). The Commission also may direct manufacturers to provide additional energy-related disclosures on the label (or information shipped with the product) including instructions for the maintenance, use, or repair of the covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(5)). Finally, section 326(b) of EPCA contains certain reporting requirements for covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6296). B. Ceiling Fan Uses According to the DOE, 69.6 million of U.S. households (or 65.1 percent) had ceiling fans in 2001. 9 Ceiling fans can improve the comfort of a home by circulating air to create a draft throughout a room. For homes using air conditioning, a ceiling fan allows consumers to raise the thermostat setting about 4 °F with no reduction in comfort. In temperate climates, or during moderately hot weather, ceiling fans may allow consumers to avoid using air conditioning altogether. A larger fan blade provides comparable cooling at a lower velocity than a smaller blade. DOE recommends that a 36- or 44-inch diameter fan can be used to cool a room up to 225 square feet, while fans that are 52 inches or more should be used in larger rooms. 10 In the winter, by reversing the blade direction and operating at low speed, ceiling fans can provide a gentle updraft, which forces warm air near the ceiling down into the occupied space. 11 9 *See* *http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ceilingfan/ceiling_fan.html.* 10 *See* *http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12355.* 11 *See* *http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=ceiling_fans.pr_ceiling_fans_usage.* C. Energy Star Specifications As mentioned above, the statute requires manufacturers to derive the energy information on ceiling fan labels from DOE tests, which must be based on the Energy Star Guidance Manual. The Energy Star program, administered by the EPA and DOE, is a voluntary labeling program that identifies high efficiency products. Ceiling fans that move air 20% more efficiently, on average, than standard models qualify for the Energy Star label. The program also has minimum airflow requirements for qualifying models. Airflow is the rate of air movement at a specific fan setting expressed in cubic feet per minute (“CFM”). Airflow efficiency is the ratio of airflow divided by power consumed by the motor and controls at a specific ceiling fan setting expressed in CFM per watt (“CFM/Watt”). Energy Star requires participating manufacturers to perform tests and self-certify those product models that meet the Energy Star guidelines. Manufacturers must derive airflow and airflow efficiency measurements using the Solid State Test Method as defined in the Energy Star Guidance Manual. 12 Under this test method, testing personnel must place the fan above a large diameter tube in a standard temperature and humidity-controlled room. The air delivered by the fan passes through the tunnel where a row of velocity sensors mounted on a rotating arm measures the airflow at various points. Energy Star directs manufacturers to measure efficiency at each of three fan speeds (low, medium, high). For example, at low speed, fans must have a minimum airflow of 1,250 CFM and an efficiency of 155 CFM/Watt and, at high speed, fans must have a minimum airflow of 5,000 CFM and an efficiency of 75 CFM/Watt. 12 Energy Star Testing Facility Guidance Manual, Version 1.1 (December 9, 2002). D. California Energy Commission In addition to the Energy Star specifications and test method, the State of California has requirements for ceiling fans. Under the California regulations, each ceiling fan package must display, in characters no less than 1/4 inch high, the unit's airflow (in CFM) and airflow efficiency (in CFM/Watt) at high, medium, and low speeds. The requirements only apply to fans with diameters of 50 inches or greater. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 20, section 1607(d)(7)). California regulations do not specify the test procedures manufacturers must use to derive the required information. II. Proposed Rule for Ceiling Fans The Commission is proposing a ceiling fan labeling rule that would require the disclosure of:

(1)The fan's airflow at high speed in CFM;

(2)the fan's power consumption in watts;

(3)the fan's airflow efficiency in CFM/Watt at high speed; and

(4)a range of airflow efficiencies for standard-sized fans on the market as published by the Commission. To obtain this information, manufacturers would have to test their fans pursuant to a DOE test procedure. The proposed Rule would require manufacturers to provide this information on a label on the product packaging. Finally, the proposed Rule would require manufacturers to submit reports to the Commission with information such as airflow, power consumption, and airflow efficiency at high speed for the applicable models pursuant to EPCA's reporting requirements (42 U.S.C. 6296). The following discussion details the specific information that the proposed Rule would require on the label and addresses several issues raised by the proposal. A. Test Procedures—Stay of Labeling Rules Under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)), manufacturers must determine the energy performance of their products pursuant to standard DOE test procedures. DOE has not published final test procedures for ceiling fans. Without such requirements, manufacturers cannot comply with the Commission's labeling rule. Under EPACT (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(G)(ii)), the labeling requirements for ceiling fans apply to products manufactured after January 1, 2009. Accordingly, the Commission plans to stay the effectiveness of any final labeling rules until that date or until DOE final test procedures become effective, whichever date is later. EPCA requires that DOE base its ceiling fan test procedures on Energy Star's test method (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)). Therefore, the FTC expects that the information derived from DOE's required tests will allow manufacturers to derive all the energy-related data they need for the label required under the Commission's proposed Rule. B. Operating Cost and Energy Disclosures Section 324(c) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)) requires labels for covered products to contain operating-cost information unless the Commission determines that such disclosure is not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically feasible. The Commission believes that annual operating costs may not be an appropriate energy performance measure because ceiling fan use is likely to vary significantly depending on factors such as climate, household heating and cooling systems, and individual use. Given these significant variations, it appears that annual cost information would have limited utility and could possibly mislead consumers. Instead, the Commission proposes to require the disclosure of fan energy performance as expressed in airflow (CFM), electricity use (watts), and airflow efficiency (CFM/Watt). Under the proposed Rule, the wattage disclosure will also include a phrase indicating that the disclosed amount does not include lights attached to the fan. Each of the three proposed descriptors provides different information about the fan. Electricity use (in watts) provides information about the power drawn by the fan and allows consumers to compare the fan's energy use to other household items such as light bulbs. Electricity use information also provides an idea of how much the fan will cost to operate because the higher the wattage, the higher the operating costs. Electricity use does not, however, provide information about the amount of air the fan can move. For example, a fan that uses very little electricity may not create the air movement adequate for a consumer's needs. The airflow information describes the amount of air the fan will move in cubic feet per minute (CFM)—the greater the CFM, the more air the model will move. The airflow efficiency, expressed in cubic feet per minute per watt (CFM/W) indicates the amount of air the product will move for each watt of electricity it uses. This efficiency information describes the relationship between the product's energy use and its output, not just the electricity used by the product. The Commission has considered simplifying the label to require the disclosure of a single descriptor ( *e.g.* , electricity use or airflow efficiency). It appears, however, that each single descriptor fails, by itself, to convey information to explain the product's energy performance. As discussed above, electricity use does not provide information about fan output. Similarly, the efficiency rating is not necessarily an accurate predictor of the fan's electricity consumption or its operating cost. For example, a model with an efficiency rating of 100 CFM/Watt, 6,000 CFM airflow, and 60 watts power consumption will use more electricity and thus cost more to operate than a fan with a lower efficiency rating of 91 CFM/Watt, 5,000 CFM airflow, and power consumption of 55 watts. Because airflow efficiency is the ratio of airflow ( *i.e.* , fan strength) to power consumption, the less efficient model (91 CFM/Watt) may deliver less air but, at the same time, use less electricity and thus cost less to operate. Therefore, where there is significant variation in the airflow of competing models, the label should not suggest that high efficiency necessarily equates with cost savings. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require all three descriptors on the label. The Commission seeks suggestions on whether the proposed label can be simplified in a way that continues to provide accurate, useful information for consumers. C. Disclosures at High Speed Under the proposed Rule, each fan label must disclose the model's airflow efficiency, airflow, and power consumption at high speed. The Commission proposes to limit the disclosures to high speed settings in an effort to simplify the information on the label. The Commission expects that the information at high speed will be adequate to allow consumers to compare the efficiency rating and power consumed by competing models. The inclusion of information for other speed settings may clutter the label with few additional benefits. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to require disclosures only at high speed and whether there is a consistent relationship between the airflow efficiencies at high speeds and at low speeds ( *e.g.* , whether high efficiency fans consistently provide relatively high airflow efficiencies at both high and low speeds). D. Additional Performance Information Under the proposed Rule, manufacturers would have the discretion to provide additional energy information elsewhere on the package or in other marketing information. This information could include airflow efficiencies, power consumption in watts, and airflow at other speeds as long as such information is adequately substantiated and fairly represents the results of the applicable test procedure. To ensure that all fan packages feature a uniform energy label, however, the proposed Rule would limit the information allowed on the required label. A uniform label should make it easier for consumers to locate and read the information on different labels as they shop. The Commission seeks comment on whether such restrictions are appropriate. E. Efficiency Ranges and Additional Information As directed by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6294), the Commission proposes to require range information on the label. The proposed label for fans of 49 inches or greater would bear the following statement: “Compare: 49″ to 60″ ceiling fans have airflow efficiencies ranging from approximately _ to _ cubic feet per minute per watt at high speed.” The Rule would require a similar statement for fans ranging from 36 to 48 inches. This statement will provide consumers with basic information about the relative energy efficiency of two general categories of ceiling-fan sizes on the market. The Commission is not proposing a more detailed system of range information ( *e.g.* , a table of ranges for many different fan sizes and fan speeds) because it is unclear whether such information would provide consumer benefits commensurate with the costs associated with label changes necessary to reflect periodic range changes, particularly if the label is printed on the product package itself. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and, in particular, the range of efficiency numbers ( *e.g.* , 50 CFM/Watt to 130 CFM/Watt) that should be used for both statements. Finally, a fan's cooling comfort stems from its wind chill effect. Accordingly, ceiling fans produce no cooling benefit in unoccupied rooms. To help consumers avoid wasting electricity, the proposed label also contains the statement “Money-Saving Tip: Turn off fan when leaving room.” F. Location of Label To maximize the label's utility, consumers should be able to view the energy information while making their purchasing decision. Under the proposed Rule, manufacturers would place the ceiling fan label on product packages rather than on the products themselves. Such a requirement will assist consumers while shopping in retail stores. This labeling method would not be helpful in stores that display the fans themselves in a showroom without the product packaging. In lieu of package labeling, the rule could require the attachment of the label directly on the product itself, perhaps through a hang tag. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to require the labels on fan packages, instead of the ceiling fans themselves. G. Size and Format Requirements The proposed Rule indicates that the label must be at least four inches wide and three inches high. Prototype Label 6 contains suggested font types and sizes for the proposed label. H. Reporting Requirements Section 326 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6296) contains certain reporting requirements for covered products. For example, EPCA requires manufacturers to submit annual reports. Therefore, consistent with existing reporting requirements for other covered products, the proposed Rule would require manufacturers to submit information on the energy efficiency of ceiling fans, the model numbers for each basic model, the total energy consumed, the number of tests performed, and the capacity ( *i.e.* , cubic feet per minute). I. Internet/Catalog Disclosures Section 305.14 of the Rule requires that any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler who advertises a covered product in a catalog, including a Web site, must provide certain information related to the energy consumption or efficiency of that product. The proposed Rule would amend these catalog requirements to include ceiling fans. III. Paperwork Reduction Act The Rule contains disclosure and reporting requirements that constitute “information collection requirements” as defined by 5 CFR 1320.7(c), the regulation that implements the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). 13 OMB has approved the Rule's information collection requirements through December 31, 2007 (OMB Control No. 3084-0069). The proposed amendments would expand the Rule's existing recordkeeping, labeling, and reporting requirements to include manufacturers for a product not previously covered. Accordingly, the Commission has submitted this proposed Rule and a Supporting Statement to OMB for review under the PRA. 13 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. The Commission's burden estimates are based on census data, Department of Energy figures and estimates, general knowledge of manufacturing practices, and trade association advice and figures. Because the burden of compliance falls almost entirely on manufacturers and importers (with a *de minimis* burden relating to retailers), the Commission has calculated the burden estimates based on the number of ceiling fan units shipped domestically. The Commission estimates that there are 1,500 basic models ( *i.e.* , units with essentially identical functional physical and electrical characteristics) of ceiling fans sold in the U.S. Consistent with reporting estimates for other products covered by the Rule, the Commission estimates that the average reporting burden for manufacturers is approximately two minutes per basic model. Based on this estimate the annual reporting burden for ceiling fans is an estimated 50 hours (2 minutes x 1,500 models ÷ 60 minutes per hour). With regard to labeling burdens, manufacturers will require approximately four minutes to create a label for each basic model. Thus, the approximate annual drafting burden involved in labeling is 100 hours per year [1,500 basic models x four minutes (drafting time per basic model) ÷ 60 minutes per hour]. In addition, the Commission estimates that it will take, on average, six seconds to place labels on the packaging of each unit. Based on 2004 U.S. census data, the Commission estimates that there are approximately 6,000,000 ceiling fan units shipped each year in the U.S. Thus, the annual burden for affixing labels to ceiling fans is 10,000 hours [six (seconds) x 6,000,000 (the total products shipped in 2000) divided by 3,600 (seconds per hour)]. Accordingly, the total labeling burden would be 10,100 hours. With regard to testing burdens, manufacturers will require approximately one hour to test each new basic model. The FTC estimates that, on average, 50% of the total basic models are tested each year. Accordingly, the estimated annual testing burden would be approximately 1,500 hours [1 hour x 2 (average number of units tested) x 750 (50% of 1,500 basic models)]. The proposed Rule requires ceiling fan manufacturers to keep records of test data generated in performing the tests to derive information included on labels. The Commission estimates that it will take ceiling fan manufacturers one minute per record ( *i.e.* , per model) to store the data. Accordingly, the estimated annual recordkeeping burden would be approximately 25 hours (1 minute x 1,500 basic models ÷ 60 minutes per hour). The proposed Rule would also require sellers offering ceiling products through retail sales catalogs ( *i.e.* , those publications from which a consumer can actually order merchandise) to disclose in the catalog energy information for each fan model. Because this information is supplied by the product manufacturers, the burden on the retailer consists of incorporating the information into the catalog presentation. The Commission estimates that there are an additional 200 catalog sellers of ceiling fans (paper catalogs and online sellers) who are subject to the Rule's catalog disclosure requirements. This estimate was derived from Internet research conducted by the FTC staff regarding the number of manufacturers and online retailers of ceiling fans. The FTC estimates that these sellers each require approximately 17 hours per year to incorporate the data into their catalogs. This estimate is based on the assumption that entry of the required information takes one minute per covered product and an assumption that the average online catalog contains approximately 1,000 covered products. Given that there is great variety among sellers in the volume of products that they offer online, it is very difficult to estimate such numbers with precision. In addition, this analysis assumes that information for all 1,000 products is entered into the catalog each year. This is a conservative assumption because the number of incremental additions to the catalog from year to year is likely to be much lower after initial start-up efforts have been completed. Thus, the total catalog disclosure burden for all industries covered by the Rule is 3,400 hours (200 sellers x 17 hours annually). Therefore, the cumulative estimated annual burden for the proposed Rule would be 15,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand. The Commission has derived labor costs by applying appropriate estimated hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. In calculating the cost figures, the FTC assumes that test procedures are conducted by skilled technical personnel at an hourly rate of $29.40, and that recordkeeping and reporting, and labeling, marking, and preparation of fact sheets, generally are performed by clerical personnel at an hourly rate of $14.21. 14 14 These hourly rates are based on data recently released by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. *See http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0757.pdf.* Based on the above estimates and assumptions, the total annual labor cost for the five different categories of burden under the proposed Rule, applied to ceiling fans, is derived as follows:

(1)Annual testing labor cost is $44,100 (1500 hours x $29.40 (skilled technical wage category)); and

(2)all other annual labor costs including labeling, recordkeeping, reporting, and catalog disclosures are $192,901 (13,575 hours x $14.21 (skilled clerical wage category)). Thus, the total annual labor cost is $237,000 rounded to the nearest thousand. The Commission invites comments that will enable it to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, 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 collections of information on those who must comply, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments on any proposed filing, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements that are subject to paperwork burden review under the Paperwork Reduction Act should additionally be submitted to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted via facsimile to

(202)395-6974 because U.S. postal mail at the OMB is subject to lengthy delays due to heightened security precautions. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that the Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) with a proposed Rule and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”), if any, with the final rule, unless the Commission certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. *See* 5 U.S.C. 603-605. The Commission does not anticipate that the proposed Rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission recognizes that some of the affected manufacturers may qualify as small businesses under the relevant thresholds ( *i.e.* , 750 or fewer employees) and that the economic impact of the proposed Rule on a particular small entity could be significant. Overall, however, the proposed Rule likely will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission estimates that these requirements will apply to about 95 ceiling fan manufacturers and an additional 200 online and paper catalog sellers of ceiling fans. Out of these companies, the Commission expects that approximately 2/3 of these qualify as small businesses. In addition, the Commission does not expect that the disclosures specified in the proposed Rule will have a significant impact on these entities. Accordingly, this document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration of the FTC's certification of no effect. To ensure the accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests comment on whether the proposed Rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, including specific information on the number of entities that would be covered by the proposed Rule, the number of these companies that are “small entities,” and the average annual burden for each entity. Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the rule proposed in this notice would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an IRFA in order to inquire into the impact of the proposed Rule on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis: A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken The Federal Trade Commission is charged with enforcing the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6294, which require the agency to issue this rule. B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule The objective of the proposed Rule is to establish energy labeling requirements for the movement of air by ceiling fans. Section 137 of EPACT amends section 324 of EPCA to require the Commission to “issue, by rule, in accordance with this section, labeling requirements for the electricity used by ceiling fans to circulate air in a room.” C. Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration, household fan manufacturers qualify as small businesses if they have fewer than 750 employees. The Commission estimates that fewer than 200 entities subject to the proposed Rule's requirements qualify as small businesses. The Commission seeks comment and information with regard to the estimated number or nature of small business entities for which the proposed Rule would have a significant economic impact. D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements The Commission recognizes that the proposed labeling rule will involve some increased costs for affected parties. Most of these costs will be in the form of drafting costs for the label. The entities affected will include ceiling fan manufacturers and catalog retailers (including online sellers) of ceiling fans. The Commission does not expect that there will be any significant legal, professional, or training costs to comply with the rule. The Commission does not expect that the labeling requirements will impose significant incremental costs for Web sites or other advertising. The Commission invites comment and information on these issues. E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules The Commission has not identified any other Federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed Rule. The Commission invites comment and information on this issue. F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule The provisions of the rule directly reflect the requirements of the statute, and thus leave little room for significant alternatives to decrease the burden on regulated entities. Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any, for alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the rule on such small entities, including the need, if any, to delay the rule's effective date to provide additional time for small business compliance. If the comments filed in response to this notice identify small entities that are affected by the rule, as well as alternative methods of compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the rule on such entities, the Commission will consider the feasibility of such alternatives and determine whether they should be incorporated into the final rule. V. Questions for Comment All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before September 8, 2006. The questions below are designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted. A. What energy-related information should be required on the ceiling fan labels? B. Should the amount of information on the proposed label be reduced or otherwise simplified? If so, how should this be accomplished? C. Are the energy descriptors for the proposed label appropriate? Should “fan strength” or a similar term be used in lieu of “airflow”? D. Should the label contain information explaining terms such as “airflow,” “electricity use,” and “airflow efficiency”? If so, what should be the content of such explanations? E. Should the label contain information about annual operating costs? F. Do similar sized fans have similar airflow ratings (in cubic feet per minute)? G. Is it appropriate for the label to require energy information at high fan speed only? Or should it require the disclosure of such information at lower speeds? H. Should the label include a disclosure that the power use excludes the power used by light bulbs attached to the fan? I. Is the proposed range disclosure appropriate? Should the label require different range information? What efficiency numbers should be used in the proposed range information on the label? J. Should the Rule allow the inclusion of information on the label not specifically required by the Rule? Or should the Rule mandate uniformity in the content of the label? K. Should the label be affixed to the product itself or to the product packaging? L. What costs or burdens would the proposed requirements impose, and on whom? M. What regulatory alternatives to the proposed requirements are available that would reduce the burdens of the proposed requirements? How would such alternatives affect the benefits provided by the proposed Rule? VI. Proposed Rule Language List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305 Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out above, the Commission proposes the following amendments to 16 CFR part 305: PART 305—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 305 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294. 2. Amend § 305.2 by revising paragraph (i), revising paragraph (o)(21), and adding paragraph (o)(22) to read as follow: § 305.2 Definitions.

(i)*Energy efficiency rating* means the following product-specific energy usage descriptors: *annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE)* for furnaces; *energy efficiency ratio (EER)* for room air conditioners; *seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER)* for the cooling function of central air conditioners and heat pumps; *heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF)* for the heating function of heat pumps; *airflow efficiency* for ceiling fans; and, *thermal efficiency (TE)* for pool heaters, as these descriptors are determined in accordance with tests prescribed under section 323 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6293). These product-specific energy usage descriptors shall be used in satisfying all the requirements of this part.

(o)* * *

(21)Ceiling fans.

(22)Any other type of consumer product which the Department of Energy classifies as a covered product under section 322(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6292). 3. Amend § 305.3 by adding paragraph

(s)to read as follows: § 305.3 Description of covered products.

(s)*Ceiling fan* means a nonportable device that is suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades. 4. Add to § 305.5, paragraph (a)(11) to read as follows: § 305.5 Determinations of estimated annual energy consumption, estimated annual operating cost, and energy efficiency rating, and of water use rate.

(a)* * *

(11)Ceiling Fans—§ 430.23. 5. Add to § 305.7, paragraph

(l)to read as follows: § 305.7 Determinations of capacity.

(l)*Ceiling fans.* The capacity shall be the airflow in cubic feet per minute as determined according to appendix _ of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B. 6. Amend § 305.8 to revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) to read as follows: § 305.8 Submission of data. (a)(1) Each manufacturer of a covered product (except manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts, showerheads, faucets, water closets, urinals, general service fluorescent lamps, medium base compact fluorescent lamps, or general service incandescent lamps including incandescent reflector lamps) shall submit annually to the Commission a report listing the estimated annual energy consumption (for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers and water heaters) or the energy efficiency rating (for room air conditioners, central air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, ceiling fans, and pool heaters) for each basic model in current production, determined according to § 305.5 and statistically verified according to § 305.6. The report must also list, for each basic model in current production: The model numbers for each basic model; the total energy consumption, determined in accordance with § 305.5, used to calculate the estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency rating; the number of tests performed; and, its capacity, determined in accordance with § 305.7. For those models that use more than one energy source or more than one cycle, each separate amount of energy consumption or energy cost, measured in accordance with § 305.5, shall be listed in the report. Appendix K illustrates a suggested reporting format. Starting serial numbers or other numbers identifying the date of manufacture of covered products shall be submitted whenever a new basic model is introduced on the market. (b)(1) All data required by § 305.8(a) except serial numbers shall be submitted to the Commission annually, on or before the following dates: Product category Deadline for data submission Refrigerators Aug. 1. Refrigerator-freezers Aug. 1. Freezers Aug. 1. Central air conditioners July 1. Heat pumps July 1. Dishwashers June 1. Water heaters May 1. Room air conditioners May 1. Furnaces May 1. Pool heaters May 1. Clothes washers Oct. 1. Fluorescent lamp ballasts Mar. 1. Showerheads Mar. 1. Faucets Mar. 1. Water closets Mar. 1. Urinals Mar. 1. Ceiling fans Mar. 1. Fluorescent lamps Mar. 1, [Stayed]. Medium Base Compact Fluorescent Lamps Mar. 1, [Stayed]. Incandescent Lamps, incl. Reflector Lamps Mar. 1, [Stayed]. 7. Revise § 305.10, paragraph

(a)to read as follows: § 305.10 Ranges of estimated annual energy consumption and energy efficiency ratings.

(a)The range of estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings for each covered product (except fluorescent lamp ballasts, showerheads, faucets, water closets, urinals, or ceiling fans) shall be taken from the appropriate appendix to this rule in effect at the time the labels are affixed to the product. The Commission shall publish revised ranges annually in the **Federal Register** , if appropriate, or a statement that the specific prior ranges are still applicable for the new year. Ranges will be changed if the estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings of the products within the range change in a way that would alter the upper or lower estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency rating limits of the range by 15% or more from that previously published. When a range is revised, all information disseminated after 90 days following the publication of the revision shall conform to the revised range. Products that have been labeled prior to the effective date of a modification under this section need not be relabeled. 8. Amend § 305.11 by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph

(g)to read as follows: § 305.11 Labeling for covered products.

(a)* Labels for covered products other than fluorescent lamp ballasts, general service fluorescent lamps, medium base compact fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps (including incandescent reflector lamps), showerheads, faucets, water closets, urinals, and ceiling fans * —(1) *Layout* . All energy labels for each category of covered product shall use one size, similar colors and typefaces with consistent positioning of headline, copy and charts to maintain uniformity for immediate consumer recognition and readability. Trim size dimensions for all labels shall be as follows: width must be between 5 1/4 inches and 5 1/2 inches (13.34 cm. and 13.97 cm.); length must be 7 3/8 inches (18.73 cm.). Copy is to be set between 27 picas and 29 picas and copy page should be centered (right to left and top to bottom). Depth is variable but should follow closely the prototype labels appearing at the end of this part illustrating the basis layout. All positioning, spacing, type sizes and line widths should be similar to and consistent with the prototype labels.

(g)*Ceiling Fans* .

(1)*Content* . Any covered product that is a ceiling fan shall be labeled clearly and conspicuously on the principal display panel with the following information in order from top to bottom on the label:

(A)The words “ENERGY INFORMATION” shall appear at the top of the label with the words “at High Speed” directly underneath;

(B)The product's airflow at high speed expressed in cubic feet per minute and determined pursuant to § 305.5 of this part;

(C)The product's electricity usage at high speed expressed in watts and determined pursuant to § 305.5 of this part, including the phrase “excludes lights” as indicated in Prototype Label 6 of Appendix L of this part;

(D)The product's airflow efficiency rating at high speed expressed in cubic feet per minute per watt and determined pursuant to § 305.5 of this part;

(E)The following statement shall appear on the label for fans fewer than 49 inches in diameter: “Compare: 36″ to 48″ ceiling fans have airflow efficiencies ranging from approximately _ to _ cubic feet per minute per watt at high speed.”

(F)The following statement shall appear on the label for fans 49 inches or more in diameter: “Compare: 49″ to 60″ ceiling fans have airflow efficiencies ranging from approximately _ to _ cubic feet per minute per watt at high speed.”

(G)The following statements shall appear at the bottom of the label as indicated in Prototype Label 6 of Appendix L of this part: “Money-Saving Tip: Turn off fan when leaving room.”

(2)*Label Size and Text Font.* The label shall be four inches wide and three inches high. The text font shall be Arial or another equivalent font. Prototype Label 6 of Appendix L of this part provides an example of the size, placement, and content of information required by this part.

(3)*Placement.* The ceiling fan label shall be printed on the principal display panel of the product's packaging.

(4)*Additional Information:* No marks or information other than that specified in this part shall appear on this label, except a model name, number, or similar identifying information. 9. Amend § 305.14, by adding paragraph

(e)to read as follows: § 305.14 Catalogs.

(e)Any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler who advertises a covered product that is a ceiling fan in a catalog, from which it may be purchased, shall include in such catalog, on each page that lists the covered product, all the information concerning the product required by § 305.11(g)(1). 10. Amend part 305, Appendix L by adding Prototype Label 6 to read as follows: Appendix L to Part 305—Sample Labels Prototype Label 6 (Ceiling Fan Label) EP21jn06.000 By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-5591 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code