Rules and Regulations. Final special conditions; request for comments

19,135 words·~87 min read·/register/2006/09/06/06-7458

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE259; Special Conditions No. 23-199-SC] Special Conditions: AmSafe, Incorporated; Diamond Aircraft Industries, Incorporated, Model DA40 and DA42; Inflatable Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt With an Integrated Airbag Device AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the installation of an AmSafe, Inc., Inflatable Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device on Diamond models DA40 and DA42.

These airplanes, as modified by the installation of this Inflatable Safety Belt, will have novel and unusual design features associated with the upper-torso restraint portions of the three-point safety belt, which contains an integrated airbag device. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is August 29, 2006. Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE259, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: CE259. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark James, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4137, fax 816-329-4090, e-mail *mark.james@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment is impractical because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above.

All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:

“Comments to CE259.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On February 13, 2006, AmSafe, Inc., applied for a supplemental type certificate, for the installation of a three-point safety belt restraint system incorporating an inflatable airbag for the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats of the Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., model DA40 and DA42 airplanes. The Diamond model DA40 is a single engine, four-place airplane, and the model DA42 is a twin engine, four-place airplane.

The inflatable restraint system is a three-point safety belt restraint system consisting of a lap belt and shoulder harness. An inflatable airbag is attached to the shoulder harness. The inflatable portion of the restraint system will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. The inflatable restraint system will be installed on the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats. If an emergency landing occurs, the airbag will inflate and provide a protective cushion between the occupant's head and the structure within the airplane.

This will reduce the potential for head and torso injury. The inflatable restraint behaves in a manner similar to an automotive airbag; however, in this case, the airbag is integrated into the shoulder harness. While airbags and inflatable restraints are standard in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable three-point restraint system is novel for general aviation operations. The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of providing the same current level of safety as the Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., model DA40 and DA42 occupant restraint systems.

The FAA has two primary safety concerns with the installation of airbags or inflatable restraints: • That they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions; and • That they do not perform in a manner or at such times as to impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. The latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements. An unexpected deployment while conducting the takeoff or landing phases of flight may result in an unsafe condition.

The unexpected deployment may either startle the pilot or generate a force sufficient to cause a sudden movement of the control yoke. Either action could result in a loss of control of the airplane, the consequences of which are magnified due to the low operating altitudes during these phases of flight. The FAA has considered this when establishing these special conditions. The inflatable restraint system relies on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment.

These sensors could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of an inadvertent deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. AmSafe, Inc., must show that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight are not a hazard to the airplane or that an inadvertent deployment is extremely improbable. In addition, general aviation aircraft are susceptible to a large amount of cumulative wear and tear on a restraint system.

The potential for inadvertent deployment may increase as a result of this cumulative damage. Therefore, the impact of wear and tear on inadvertent deployment must be considered. The effect of this cumulative damage means a life limit must be established for the appropriate system components in the restraint system design. There are additional factors to be considered to minimize the chances of inadvertent deployment. General aviation airplanes are exposed to a unique operating environment, since the same airplane may be used by both experienced and student pilots.

The effect of this environment on inadvertent deployment must be understood. Therefore, qualification testing of the firing hardware/software must consider the following: • The airplane vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane; and • The inertial loads that result from typical flight or ground maneuvers, including gusts and hard landings. Any tendency for the firing mechanism to activate as a result of these loads or acceleration levels is unacceptable. Other influences on inadvertent deployment include high intensity electromagnetic fields

(HIRF)and lightning. Since the sensors that trigger deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the effects of these threats. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system, since its inadvertent deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane. Given the level of safety of the current Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., DA40 and DA42 occupant restraints, the inflatable restraint system must show that it will offer an equivalent level of protection for an emergency landing. If an inadvertent deployment occurs, the restraint must still be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order approved belt and shoulder harnesses. There is no requirement for the inflatable portion of the restraint to offer protection during multiple impacts, where more than one impact would require protection. The inflatable restraint system must deploy and provide protection for each occupant under an emergency landing condition. The seats of the models DA40 and DA42 are certificated to the structural requirements of § 23.562; therefore, the test emergency landing pulses identified in § 23.562 must be used to satisfy this requirement. A wide range of occupants may use the inflatable restraint; therefore, the protection offered by this restraint should be effective for occupants that range from the fifth percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male. Energy absorption must be performed in a consistent manner for this occupant range. In support of this operational capability, there must be a means to verify the integrity of this system before each flight. AmSafe, Inc., may establish inspection intervals where they have demonstrated the system to be reliable between these intervals. An inflatable restraint may be “armed” even though no occupant is using the seat. While there will be means to verify the integrity of the system before flight, it is also prudent to require unoccupied seats with active restraints not constitute a hazard to any occupant. This will protect any individual performing maintenance inside the cockpit while the aircraft is on the ground. The restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system. In addition, the design must prevent the inflatable seatbelt from being incorrectly buckled and/or installed such that the airbag would not properly deploy. AmSafe, Inc., may show that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will still provide the required protection. The cabins of the Diamond model airplanes identified in these special conditions are confined areas, and the FAA is concerned that noxious gasses may accumulate if the airbag deploys. When deployment occurs, either by design or inadvertently, there must not be a release of hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cockpit. An inflatable restraint should not increase the risk already associated with fire. Therefore, the inflatable restraint should be protected from the effects of fire to avoid creating an additional hazard by, for example, a rupture of the inflator. Finally, the airbag is likely to have a large volume displacement, and possibly impede the egress of an occupant. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that the inflatable restraint would be deflated at the time an occupant would attempt egress. However, it is appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable restraint may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as reasonable time. This time limit will offer a level of protection throughout the impact event. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of § 21.101, AmSafe, Inc., must show that the Diamond model DA40 and DA42, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A47CE (DA40), A57CE

(DA42)or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The following models are covered by this special condition: Diamond DA40 Type Certificate No. A47CE, Revision 6, dated January 12, 2006. Diamond DA42 Type Certificate No. A57CE, Revision 4, dated June 30, 2006. For the models listed above, the certification basis also includes all exemptions, if any; equivalent level of safety findings, if any; and special conditions not relevant to the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. If the Administrator determines that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 23 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint as installed on these Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., models because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to that model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., models DA40 and DA42 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: The AmSafe, Inc., Three-Point Safety Belt Restraint System incorporating an inflatable airbag for the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats. The purpose of the airbag is to reduce the potential for injury in the event of an accident. In a severe impact, an airbag will deploy from one shoulder harness, in a manner similar to an automotive airbag. The airbag will deploy between the head of the occupant and airplane interior structure, which will provide some protection to the head of the occupant. The restraint will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. The Code of Federal Regulations state performance criteria for seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning inflatable restraints. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in addition to the requirements of part 21 and part 23, special conditions are needed to address the installation of this inflatable restraint. Accordingly, these special conditions are adopted for the Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., models equipped with the AmSafe, Inc., three-point inflatable restraint. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., models DA40 and DA42 equipped with the AmSafe, Inc., three-point inflatable restraint system. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the previously identified Diamond models. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** ; however, the substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the delivery of the airplane(s), the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of not lowering the current level of safety of the Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., models DA40 and DA42 occupant restraint system. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for these models, as modified by AmSafe, Incorporated. *Inflatable Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device on the Pilot, Co-pilot, and Passenger Seats of the Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., Models DA40 and DA42.* 1. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will deploy and provide protection under emergency landing conditions. Compliance will be demonstrated using the dynamic test condition specified in 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.562(b)(2). It is not necessary to account for floor warpage, as required by § 23.562(b)(3), or vertical dynamic loads, as required by § 23.562(b)(1). The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 5th percentile female to a 95th percentile male. The inflatable restraint must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range. 2. The inflatable restraint must provide adequate protection for each occupant. In addition, unoccupied seats that have an active restraint must not constitute a hazard to any occupant. 3. The design must prevent the inflatable restraint from being incorrectly buckled and/or incorrectly installed such that the airbag would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required protection. 4. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or the inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings) that are likely to be experienced in service. 5. It must be extremely improbable for an inadvertent deployment of the restraint system to occur, or an inadvertent deployment must not impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or cause an unsafe condition (or hazard to the airplane). In addition, a deployed inflatable restraint must be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order

(C114)certificated belt and shoulder harness. 6. It must be shown that deployment of the inflatable restraint system is not hazardous to the occupant or will not result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include occupants whose restraint is loosely fastened. 7. It must be shown that an inadvertent deployment that could cause injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable. In addition, the restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system. 8. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will not impede rapid egress of the occupants 10 seconds after its deployment. 9. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system since its deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane. 10. It must be shown that the inflatable restraints will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin. 11. The inflatable restraint system installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result. 12. There must be a means to verify the integrity of the inflatable restraint activation system before each flight or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. 13. A life limit must be established for appropriate system components. 14. Qualification testing of the internal firing mechanism must be performed at vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August 29, 2006. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14750 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25722; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-141-AD; Amendment 39-14749; AD 2006-18-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the anti-stall valve sleeve of the ram air turbine

(RAT)for proper installation, determining the part number of the modification plate on the hydraulic pump of the RAT, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of failure of the anti-stall valve on the hydraulic pump of the RAT during scheduled ground tests. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the RAT hydraulic pump to supply adequate pressure to activate the RAT, and consequent loss of the RAT as a source of hydraulic and electrical power in an emergency situation. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 21, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 21, 2006. We must receive comments on this AD by November 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this 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 AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2797; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes. The EASA advises that operators have reported failure of the anti-stall valve on the hydraulic pump of the ram air turbine

(RAT)during scheduled ground tests. Investigation revealed that this failure was due to poor installation of the anti-stall valve sleeve, causing a shift in the anti-stall speed setting and leading to inability to supply adequate pressure to activate the RAT. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in loss of the RAT as a source of hydraulic and electrical power in an emergency situation. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A340-29-5010, including Appendix 01, dated October 10, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for determining the part number of the modification plate on the hydraulic pump of the ram air turbine (RAT), and follow-on corrective actions. The follow-on corrective actions include a one-time inspection of the anti-stall valve sleeve of the RAT for proper installation after determining the part number of the modification plate on the hydraulic pump of the RAT, reworking the anti-stall valve or replacing the RAT with a new RAT, and doing an operational test of the new RAT. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0046, dated February 16, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. The Airbus service bulletin refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-3, dated August 1, 2005, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the actions. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the RAT hydraulic pump to supply adequate pressure to activate the RAT, and consequent loss of the RAT as a source of hydraulic and electrical power in an emergency situation. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the Airbus service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and the Airbus Service Bulletin.” Differences Between the AD and the Airbus Service Bulletin Unlike the procedures described in the service bulletin, the intent of the EASA airworthiness directive referenced in this AD is to mandate the one-time inspection of the anti-stall valve sleeve of the RAT for proper installation before determining the part number of the modification plate on the hydraulic pump of the RAT. If, after beginning the inspection, it is determined that the modification plate is already marked with a 'B' showing that the inspection was accomplished previously, no further action is required by this AD. The service bulletin specifies returning any removed RAT to Hamilton Sundstrand; however, this AD does not require that action. Clarification of Inspection Terminology In this AD, the “inspection” specified in the service bulletin is referred to as a “general visual inspection.” We have included the definition for a general visual inspection in a note in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the required actions 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 AD would be $80 per airplane. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less than 30 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25722; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-141-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it. 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 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. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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): **2006-18-10 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14749. Docket No. FAA-2006-25722; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-141-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective September 21, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with a ram air turbine

(RAT)module, Model ERPS33T, part number (P/N) 772722D or 772722E; serial numbers 0001 through 0024 inclusive, and 0101 through 0166 inclusive, having a Parker hydraulic pump with P/N 4217701 or 4217702. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of failure of the anti-stall valve on the hydraulic pump of the RAT during scheduled ground tests. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the RAT hydraulic pump to supply adequate pressure to activate the RAT, and consequent loss of the RAT as a source of hydraulic and electrical power in an emergency situation. 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. Inspection/Follow-on Corrective Actions if Necessary

(f)Within 11 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time general visual inspection of the anti-stall valve sleeve of the RAT for proper installation, and determine the P/N of the modification plate on the hydraulic pump of the RAT, by doing all applicable actions, including all applicable follow-on corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5010, dated October 10, 2005. All corrective actions must be done before further flight. Although the service bulletin specifies returning any removed RAT to Hamilton Sundstrand, this AD does not require that action. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “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.” Note 2: The Airbus service bulletin refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-3, dated August 1, 2005, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(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

(h)European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)airworthiness directive 2006-0046, dated February 16, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5010, excluding Appendix 01, dated October 10, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14624 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24585; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-275-AD; Amendment 39-14743; AD 2006-18-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F Airplanes; Model DC-9-21 Airplanes; Model DC-9-30 Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-41 Airplanes; and Model DC-9-51 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. That AD currently requires a one-time inspection at a certain disconnect panel in the left forward cargo compartment to find contamination of electrical connectors and to determine if a dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD revises the applicability of the existing AD by removing certain airplanes and adding others. This AD results from a report of electrical arcing that resulted in a fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent contamination of certain electrical connectors, which could cause electrical arcing and consequent fire on the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 11, 2006. On March 7, 2003 (68 FR 4900, January 31, 2003), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, excluding Evaluation Form, dated November 21, 2001. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. 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 AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elvin K. Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5344; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2003-03-08, amendment 39-13032 (68 FR 4900, January 31, 2003). The existing AD applies to certain McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 1, 2006 (71 FR 25510). That NPRM proposed to continue to require a one-time inspection at a certain disconnect panel in the left forward cargo compartment to find contamination of electrical connectors and to determine if a dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel, and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability of the existing AD to remove certain airplanes and add others. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Request To Clarify Applicability ABX Air requests that we revise paragraph

(h)of this AD to specify that it applies to airplanes equipped with forward lavatories. The commenter states that this change would be consistent with the applicability of AD 2003-03-08. The commenter also states that the change would eliminate the need for requesting an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)for airplanes that have had the forward lavatories removed. We agree that paragraph

(h)applies to airplanes equipped with forward lavatories. We point out that the effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004, notes clearly that the service bulletin is applicable only to airplanes with forward lavatories installed. Since we reference Revision 2 in the applicability of this AD, this AD applies to the airplanes identified in Revision 2 and equipped with forward lavatories. However, we have revised paragraph

(h)of this AD as proposed by the commenter to provide clarification. Request To Accept Previous AMOCs Northwest Airlines

(NWA)states that it has accomplished the intent of AD 2003-03-08 on all DC-9 airplanes in its fleet through two AMOCs, which allow use of alternative replacement parts. (The requirements of AD 2003-03-08 (corresponding to paragraph

(f)of this AD) apply only to airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2001.) NWA states that it has inspected and modified several airplanes in accordance with AD 2003-03-08, which are not included in the effectivity of Revision 01 of the service bulletin. NWA further states that paragraph (h), as written in the NPRM, applies to any airplane that is not listed in Revision 01. NWA asserts that any such airplane would be required to accomplish paragraph

(h)in accordance with Revision 2 of the service bulletin. Therefore, NWA requests that we revise the NPRM to accept previously granted AMOCs to AD 2003-03-08. As justification, NWA states that this change would allow compliance with Revision 2 (required by paragraph

(h)of this AD) without having to apply for an additional AMOC. We infer that NWA would like previous AMOCs to be acceptable for compliance with both paragraphs

(f)and

(h)of this AD. We agree that AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2003-03-08 are acceptable for the corresponding provisions of paragraph

(f)of this AD. Consequently, we have added a new paragraph (j)(3) to this AD accepting those AMOCs. However, we disagree with the commenter's interpretation that paragraph

(h)of this AD applies to any airplane not identified in Revision 01 of the service bulletin. According to paragraph

(c)of this AD, this AD applies only to the airplanes identified in Revision 2 of the service bulletin. Therefore, paragraph

(h)of this AD applies to the airplanes identified in Revision 2 (and equipped with forward lavatories), except those on which Revision 01 of the service bulletin has been previously accomplished. Furthermore, it is not our intent to require accomplishment of both Revisions 01 and 2. Therefore, we have added a new paragraph

(i)to this AD, which states that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(h)of this AD. We have reidentified the subsequent paragraphs accordingly. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 649 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this 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 2003-03-08) 1 $80 $80 170 $13,600 Inspection (new action) 1 80 80 254 20,320 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under 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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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 39-13032 (68 FR 4900, January 31, 2003) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-18-05 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-14743. Docket No. FAA-2006-24585; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-275-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-03-08. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the McDonnell Douglas airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004. Table 1.—Affected Airplanes Model

(1)DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes.

(2)DC-9-21 airplanes.

(3)DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, and DC-9-34F airplanes.

(4)DC-9-41 airplanes.

(5)DC-9-51 airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of electrical arcing that resulted in a fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent contamination of certain electrical connectors, which could cause electrical arcing and consequent fire on 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. Requirements of AD 2003-03-08 One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions

(f)For airplanes equipped with forward lavatories, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2001: Within 18 months after March 7, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-03-08), perform a one-time general visual inspection of the disconnect panel at station Y=237.000 in the left forward cargo compartment to find evidence of contamination (e.g., staining or corrosion) of electrical connectors by blue water, and to determine if a dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel. Do this inspection according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, excluding Evaluation Form, dated November 21, 2001.

(1)If no evidence of contamination of electrical connectors is found, and a dripshield is installed, no further action is required by this AD.

(2)If any evidence of contamination of any electrical connector is found: Before further flight, remove each affected connector, and install a new or serviceable connector according to the service bulletin.

(3)If no dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel: Before further flight, install a dripshield according to the service bulletin. Previously Accomplished Inspections and Corrective Actions

(g)Inspections and corrective actions accomplished before March 7, 2003, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, dated July 31, 2001, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions

(h)For airplanes equipped with forward lavatories, other than those identified in paragraph

(f)of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do the one-time general visual inspection and applicable corrective actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004. The applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Credit for Previous Accomplishment

(i)For airplanes equipped with forward lavatories, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004: Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD before the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph

(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 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 2003-03-08 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph

(f)of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(k)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, excluding Evaluation Form, dated November 21, 2001, as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)On March 7, 2003 (68 FR 4900, January 31, 2003), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, excluding Evaluation Form, dated November 21, 2001.

(3)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 a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14627 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22033; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-218-AD; Amendment 39-14391; AD 2005-24-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a typographical error in an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that was published in the **Federal Register** on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72363). The error resulted in the citation of incorrect part numbers. This AD applies to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the spring cartridges of the elevator gust lock system to determine if the lock washer projection correctly fits the slots in the cartridge flange, and corrective action if necessary, for certain airplanes. This AD also requires final terminating action for all affected airplanes. DATES: Effective January 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any final disposition. 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 U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2005-22033; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2004-NM-218-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 18, 2005, the FAA issued AD 2005-24-11, amendment 39-14391 (70 FR 72363, December 5, 2005), for certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections of the spring cartridges of the elevator gust lock system to determine if the lock washer projection correctly fits the slots in the cartridge flange, and corrective action if necessary. That AD also requires final terminating action for all affected airplanes. On December 23, 2005, we issued a correction to AD 2005-24-11, (71 FR 231, January 4, 2006), which corrected the reference to the effective date of Brazilian airworthiness directive 2003-01-03R1. As published, AD 2005-24-11 incorrectly cited the part numbers (P/Ns) of the spring cartridges in several places as P/N KDP2611 and P/N KDP4235. Those P/Ns do not exist. The correct P/Ns should be KPD2611 and KPD4235. No other part of the regulatory information has been changed; therefore, the final rule is not republished in the **Federal Register** . The effective date of this AD remains January 9, 2006. § 39.13 [Corrected] In the **Federal Register** of December 5, 2005, on page 72365, paragraph

(f)in the first column, paragraph

(g)in the second column, and paragraph

(h)in the third column of AD 2005-24-11 are corrected to read as follows:

(f)For Model EMB-135BJ airplanes: Within 30 days after May 14, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-09-03), perform a general visual inspection of each spring cartridge of the elevator gust lock system to determine if the lock washer projection correctly fits the slots in the cartridge flange, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0006, dated December 9, 2002; Revision 01, dated June 3, 2003; or Revision 02, dated April 12, 2004. Before further flight, replace any discrepant spring cartridge with a new part having the same part number, in accordance with the service bulletin; or replace the spring cartridge, part number (P/N) KPD2611, with a new, improved spring cartridge, P/N KPD4235, as specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD. * * *

(g)For airplanes not identified in paragraph

(f)of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, perform a general visual inspection of each spring cartridge of the elevator gust lock system to determine if the lock washer projection correctly fits the slots in the cartridge flange, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0098, dated December 9, 2002; Change 01, dated June 3, 2003; or Revision 02, dated April 12, 2004. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours after the initial inspection until the replacement of the spring cartridge, P/N KPD2611, with a new, improved spring cartridge, P/N KPD4235, is done as specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD. * * * New Requirements of This AD Replacement of Spring Cartridge

(h)Within 5,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first, replace the spring cartridge, P/N KPD2611, with a new, improved spring cartridge, P/N KPD4235, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0012, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2004 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes); or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-27-0102, Revision 02, dated January 20, 2005 (for Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes); as applicable. * * * Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14687 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-22125; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-130-AD; Amendment 39-14745; AD 2006-18-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This AD requires replacing the very high frequency

(VHF)antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage with a new, improved VHF antenna. This AD results from a report of the loss of all voice communications due to a lightning strike damaging all the VHF antennas. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of voice communication, which, when combined with the complexity of the national airspace system, could result in reduced flightcrew situational awareness, increased flightcrew workload, and increased risk of human error, and consequent reduced ability to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. The Director of the **Federal Register** approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 18, 2005 (70 FR 48500). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the very high frequency

(VHF)antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage with a new, improved VHF antenna. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Request for All Very High Frequency

(VHF)Antennas To Be Replaced Air Line Pilots Association

(ALPA)requests that all of the VHF antennas on the subject airplanes be replaced with the new, improved antennas. ALPA suggests that, for redundancy purposes, all of the VHF antennas should be replaced because “all” of the VHF antennas were damaged in the event that precipitated the AD. We do not agree to require replacement of all the VHF communications antennas. Section 25.1316(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(FARs)(14 CFR 25.1316) requires that a major aircraft system that, if it failed, would contribute to or cause a condition that would reduce the capability of the airplane or flightcrew to cope with adverse operating conditions must be designed to be able to recover in a timely manner after exposure to lightning. In the incident precipitating this AD, the VHF communications system failed because none of the VHF antennas were able to recover. The newly designed replacement antenna required by this AD has been through considerable testing and we find that sufficient data exist to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of section 25.1316(b) and will be able to recover function of the VHF communications system following a lightning strike. Therefore, replacing the position 1 VHF communications antenna with the new antenna instead of replacing all of the VHF antennas is sufficient to ensure system recovery in the event of a lightning strike and will adequately address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. However, operators are free to replace the position 2 and 3 VHF communications antennas with the newly designed antenna at their discretion. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Request for Review of the Subject Airplane's Ability To Handle Lightning Strikes ALPA also requests that the FAA look into the subject airplane's ability to adequately and safely handle lightning strikes and static discharges. ALPA gives no justification for this request. We do not agree. This airplane model design was certificated to the airworthiness standards for lightning protection provided in part 25 of the FARs (14 CFR part 25). The purpose of these standards is to ensure that the operation of the airplane is not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to lightning. Beyond the event that is the subject of this AD, we are unaware of any other instances of this model airplane being adversely affected by exposure to lightning. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Reference Parts Manufacturer Approval

(PMA)Parts Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that the language in the NPRM be changed to permit installation of PMA equivalent parts. The commenter states that the mandated installation of a certain part number in the NPRM “creates a conflict with 14 CFR Section 21.303.” We do not agree with MARPA's request. We infer that MARPA would like the AD to specify the manufacturer and part number in order to permit installation of any equivalent PMA parts. We also infer that MARPA believes that it is not necessary for an operator to request approval of an alternate method of compliance

(AMOC)in order to install an “equivalent” PMA part. Whether an alternative part is “equivalent” in adequately resolving the unsafe condition can only be determined on a case-by-case basis based on a complete understanding of the unsafe condition. We are not currently aware of any such parts. Our policy is that, in order for operators to replace a part with one that is not specified in the AD, they must request an AMOC. This is necessary so that we can make a specific determination that an alternative part is or is not susceptible to the same unsafe condition. In response to MARPA's statement regarding a “conflict with FAR 21.303,” under which the FAA issues PMAs, this statement appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the relationship between ADs and the certification procedural regulations of part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 21). Those regulations, including section 21.303 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.203), are intended to ensure that aeronautical products comply with the applicable airworthiness standards. But ADs are issued when, notwithstanding those procedures, we become aware of unsafe conditions in these products or parts. Therefore, an AD takes precedence over design approvals when we identify an unsafe condition, and mandating installation of a certain part number in an AD is not at variance with section 21.303. The AD provides a means of compliance for operators to ensure that the identified unsafe condition is addressed appropriately. For an unsafe condition attributable to a part, the AD normally identifies the replacement parts necessary to obtain that compliance. As stated in section 39.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.7), “Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of an applicable airworthiness directive is in violation of this section.” Unless an operator obtains approval for an AMOC, replacing a part with one not specified by the AD would make the operator subject to an enforcement action and result in a civil penalty. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard. Request To Address Defective PMA Parts MARPA notes that safety gaps may occur because original equipment manufacturer

(OEM)parts determined to be defective may have been replaced with PMA parts that are also defective. MARPA further states that frequently design defects that arise in OEM parts will also exist in PMA parts, since they may actually only differ in part number, while sharing the same design data. Therefore MARPA requests that the defective parts be identified by manufacturer and part number in the NPRM. MARPA also suggests wording be added to the NPRM that would “embrace any present or future PMA alternatives to either the defective part or the ‘new and improved’ part.” From these statements, we infer that MARPA would like the NPRM to be revised to cover possible defective PMA alternative parts, rather than just OEM parts listed in the service bulletin, so that those defective PMA parts also are subject to the NPRM. We concur with MARPA's general request that, if we know that an unsafe condition also exists in PMA parts, the AD should address those parts, as well as the original parts. MARPA's remarks are timely in that the Transport Airplane Directorate currently is in the process of reviewing this issue as it applies to transport category airplanes. We acknowledge that there may be other ways of addressing this issue to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our policy regarding addressing PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. We consider that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to the final rule in this regard. Clarification of 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. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD will affect about 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions will take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost $654. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $33,712, or $784 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-18-07 Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Amendment 39-14745. Docket No. FAA-2005-22125; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-130-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December 29, 2004. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of the loss of all voice communications due to a lightning strike damaging all the very high frequency

(VHF)antennas. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of voice communication, which, when combined with the complexity of the national airspace system, could result in reduced flightcrew situational awareness, increased flightcrew workload, and increased risk of human error, and consequent reduced ability to maintain safe flight and landing 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. Modification

(f)Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the VHF antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage with a new, improved VHF antenna in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December 29, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(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 14 CFR 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

(h)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-04-04, effective April 30, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(i)You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December 29, 2004, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14637 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25721; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-132-AD; Amendment 39-14748; AD 2006-18-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to all BAe Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes. That AD currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

(ICA)to incorporate life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures; to incorporate new inspections to detect fatigue cracking of certain significant structural items (SSIs); and to revise life limits for certain equipment and various components. This new AD requires revising the ALS of the ICA to include additional and revised inspections of the fuselage. This AD results from the manufacturer review of fatigue test results that identified additional and revised inspections of the fuselage that are necessary in order to ensure the continued structural integrity of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective September 21, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 21, 2006. We must receive comments on this AD by November 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this 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 British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thomspon, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On September 6, 2005, we issued AD 2005-19-03, amendment 39-14268 (70 FR 57126, September 30, 2005), for all BAe Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes. That AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures. That AD also requires revising the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new inspections to detect fatigue cracking of certain significant structural items

(SSIs)and to revise life limits for certain equipment and various components. That AD resulted from a determination that existing inspection techniques are not adequate for certain SSIs and by the revision of certain life limits. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2005-19-03, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for European Union, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes. The EASA advises that a manufacturer review of fatigue test results identified additional and revised inspections for the fuselage that are necessary in order to ensure the continued structural integrity of the airplane. Inadequate inspection techniques or replacement intervals could result in fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. Relevant Service Information BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005. The service bulletin describes structural inspections of the fuselage for cracking, among other actions. The service bulletin describes additional inspections and revises the compliance times of certain existing inspections. The service bulletin also specifies repairs if necessary. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0090, dated April 20, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom 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. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. This AD supersedes AD 2005-19-03 and retains the requirements of the existing AD. This AD also requires revising the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include new and revised inspections of the fuselage specified in the service bulletin described previously. Costs of Compliance None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. The following table provides the estimated costs to comply with this AD for any affected airplane that might be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane ALS Revisions 1 $80 $80 FAA's Determination of the Effective Date No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less than 30 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25721; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-132-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD that might suggest a need to modify it. 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 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. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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 39-14268 (70 FR 57126, September 30, 2005) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-18-09 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace Regional Aircraft):** Amendment 39-14748. Docket No. FAA-2006-25721; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-132-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective September 21, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-19-03. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model ATP airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new and revised inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

(k)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular

(AC)25-1529. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from the manufacturer review of fatigue test results that identified additional and revised inspections for the fuselage that are necessary in order to ensure the continued structural integrity of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and consequent rapid decompression 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 Requirements of AD 2005-19-03 Airworthiness Limitations Revision Specified in AD 2000-26-10

(f)Within 30 days after February 7, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2000-26-10, amendment 39-12060), revise the Airworthiness Limitations section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. One approved method is by incorporating Section 05-00-00, dated August 15, 1997, of the British Aerospace ATP Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), dated October 15, 1999, into the ALS. This section references other chapters of the AMM. The applicable revision level of the referenced chapters is that in effect on February 7, 2001. Doing the revision specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD replaces Chapters 27, 32, 53, and 54 listed in Section 05-10-11 and Chapters 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57 listed in Section 05-10-17 that are in effect on February 7, 2001, with Chapters 27, 32, 53, and 54 listed in Section 05-10-11, “Mandatory Life Limitations (Airframe)”; and Chapters 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57 listed in Section 05-10-17, “Structurally Significant Items (SSIs)”; both dated July 15, 2004; of the British Aerospace ATP AMM. Airworthiness Limitations Specified in AD 2005-19-03

(g)Within 30 days after September 28, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-19-03), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. One approved method is by incorporating the tasks for Chapters 27, 32, 53, and 54 listed in Section 05-10-11, “Mandatory Life Limitations (Airframe)”; and the tasks for Chapters 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57 listed in Section 05-10-17, “Structurally Significant Items (SSIs)”; both dated July 15, 2004; of the British Aerospace ATP AMM; into the ALS. These chapters replace the corresponding chapters in Section 05-00-00, dated August 15, 1997, of the British Aerospace ATP AMM as specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD. Doing the revision specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD replaces certain Chapter 52 and 53 tasks listed in Section 05-10-17, “Structurally Significant Items (SSIs)”, dated July 15, 2004, of the British Aerospace ATP AMM, with the corresponding Chapter 52 and 53 tasks listed BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005. New Requirements of This AD New and Revised Airworthiness Limitations

(h)Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the new and revised tasks for Chapters 52 and 53 as specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005, into the ALS. The revised Chapter 52 and 53 tasks replace the corresponding Chapter 52 and 53 tasks in Section 05-10-17, “Structurally Significant Items (SSIs)”, dated July 15, 2004, of the British Aerospace ATP AMM, as specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(i)Except as provided by paragraph

(k)of this AD: After the actions specified in paragraphs (f), (g), and

(h)of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraphs (f), (g), and

(h)of this AD. No Reporting Required

(j)Although BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(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.

(l)British airworthiness directive G-2004-0020, dated August 25, 2004, and European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)airworthiness directive 2006-0090, dated April 20, 2006, also address the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(m)You must use BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14631 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24199; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-025-AD; Amendment 39-14744; AD 2006-18-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. This AD requires revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM); performing a one-time hardness test of certain ribs of the left- and right-hand engine pylons, as applicable, which would terminate the AFM limitations; and performing related corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that certain stainless steel ribs installed in the engine pylon may not have been heat-treated during manufacture, which could result in significantly reduced structural integrity of the pylon. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, which could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2141; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the ** Federal Register ** on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15065). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM); performing a one-time hardness test of certain ribs of the left- and right-hand engine pylons, as applicable, which would terminate the AFM limitations; and performing related corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received. Request To Revise Hardness Test Requirement The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member, Northwest Airlines (NWA), requests that we review the requirement for the hardness test specified in the NPRM. NWA states that the NPRM proposes a hardness test before further flight in the case of a hard or overweight landing and further states that French airworthiness directive F-2006-011 R1, dated January 18, 2006, which also addresses the subject of this AD, did not have such a requirement. NWA asserts that a requirement to visually inspect the airplane and pylons for deformation after a hard landing already exists. NWA believes that, as a hardness test requires special tooling and expertise that would not likely be available at most locations where a hard landing might occur, the hardness test is not appropriate and a visual inspection in accordance with maintenance procedures should be accomplished instead. We agree with NWA that a hardness test after a hard or overweight landing is not necessary. Therefore, we have revised paragraph

(g)of the AD to remove the requirement for a hardness test after a hard or overweight landing. Clarification of Corrective Actions To prevent possible confusion, we have revised paragraph

(h)of the AD to clarify that the specified corrective actions apply to discrepant ribs discovered during the hardness test required by paragraph

(g)of the AD. Supersedure of French Airworthiness Directive The European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)has issued airworthiness directive 2006-0136, dated May 22, 2006. The EASA airworthiness directive supersedes French airworthiness directive F-2006-011 R1, dated January 18, 2006, which was referenced in the NPRM as the applicable parallel airworthiness directive. The EASA airworthiness directive contains no new or revised material that affects the technical content of this AD; however, we have revised paragraph

(k)of this AD for clarity and traceability of information that applies to this AD. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD will affect about 112 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required hardness test will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $7,280, or $65 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

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

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-18-06 Airbus:** Amendment 39-14744. Docket No. FAA-2006-24199; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-025-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category; having a manufacturer serial number as identified in Airbus All Operators Telex

(AOT)A320-54A1015, dated December 14, 2005 (referred to after this paragraph as “the AOT”). Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that certain stainless steel ribs installed in the engine pylon may not have been heat-treated during manufacture, which could result in significantly reduced structural integrity of the pylon. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, which could lead to separation of the engine from 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. Revise Limitations

(f)Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section of the Airbus A318/319/320/321 Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)to include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. “In case of flight in severe turbulence, strictly adhere to reduced speeds as defined in Aircraft Flight Manual 4.03.00 P 03.” Note 1: When a statement identical to that specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, and the general revisions have been inserted into the AFM, the copy of this AD may be removed from the Limitations section of the AFM unless it has already been removed as specified in paragraph

(g)or

(h)of this AD. Hardness Test

(g)Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Perform a one-time hardness test to determine the hardness of ribs 8 and 9 of the left- and right-hand engine pylons, in accordance with the instructions of the AOT. If no discrepant rib is found installed on the airplane, the statement specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD may be removed from the Limitations section of the AFM.

(1)For airplanes equipped with CFM engines: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.

(2)For airplanes equipped with IAE engines: Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD. Note 2: The AOT refers to Airbus Repair Instruction 546 12081, Issue B, dated January 3, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified by the AOT. Corrective Actions

(h)For any discrepant rib found during the hardness test specified by paragraph

(g)of this AD: Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, perform applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of the AOT. When corrective actions have been applied to all discrepant ribs found on the airplane, the statement specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD may be removed from the Limitations section of the AFM for that airplane.

(1)For airplanes equipped with CFM engines: Within 14 days after accomplishing the hardness test required by paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(2)For airplanes equipped with IAE engines: Within 28 days after accomplishing the hardness test required by paragraph

(g)of this AD. No Reporting Requirement

(i)Although the AOT referenced in this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(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.

(k)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0136, dated May 22, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use Airbus All Operators Telex A320-54A1015, dated December 14, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14623 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24667; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-009-AD; Amendment 39-14746; AD 2006-18-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Goodyear Aviation Tires, Part Number 217K22-1, Installed on Various Transport Category Airplanes, Including But Not Limited to Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 Airplanes; and Gulfstream Model G-1159, G-1159A, G-1159B, G-IV, GIV-X, GV, and GV-SP Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain aviation tires installed on various transport category airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the nosewheel tires to determine if they are within a designated serial number range, and replacement if necessary. This AD results from reports of tread separations and tread-area bulges on the nosewheel tires. We are issuing this AD to prevent tread separation from a nosewheel tire during takeoff or landing, which could result in compromised nosewheel steering or ingestion of separated tread by an engine, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane on the runway or in the air. DATES: This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 1144 E. Market Street, Akron, OH 44316-0001, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Miller, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE-117C, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone

(847)294-7518; fax

(847)294-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain aviation tires installed on various transport category airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on May 3, 2006 (71 FR 25987). That NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of the nosewheel tires to determine if they are within a designated serial number range, and replacement if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM Two commenters, both private citizens, state that they support the NPRM. Requests To Revise Cost Estimate The same commenters request that we revise the cost estimate in the NPRM. Both commenters state that in their experience the inspection to determine the serial number of the tire would take much less time than the one hour given for that action in the NPRM. The commenters state that the inspection should take only 10 to 15 minutes. One commenter points out that the removal and replacement of the affected tires would take 1 to 2 hours, depending on the current status of the airplane and other variables. We partially agree. We agree that the inspection may take less than 1 hour. We disagree that it is necessary to change the cost estimate for the inspection to 10 to 15 minutes rather than 1 hour. We provide these estimates in order to give airplane operators notice of the costs they are likely to incur to do the actions specifically required by the AD. To account for the worst-case cost for each operator, we generally round dollar and hour figures to the next-highest value. We also disagree with the request to change the cost estimate to include the replacement cost. The replacement is an “on condition” action, and may or may not be required for a given airplane. The cost figures discussed in NPRMs represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD; in this case, the inspection. These figures also do not typically include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions. We have not changed the final rule in this regard. Requests To Revise Compliance Time The same commenters both request that we revise the compliance time for doing the inspection from 60 days to 30 days. The commenters point out that Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, Revision 5, dated December 22, 2005 (referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions), recommends a compliance time of 14 days, which leads one commenter to believe that this is a serious problem and should be a safety concern for Gulfstream and Bombardier owners. One commenter says that even though the NPRM states that most operators have already complied with the service bulletin, that does not mean it is time to ease up on the others' safety. The other commenter points out that it doesn't take long to inspect the tire and determine the serial number. The commenters both cite serious aviation accidents related to blown tires, and state that the potential serious consequences also justify a shorter compliance time. We acknowledge the commenters' concerns. However, we do not agree with the request to revise the compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules. Further, the manufacturer agreed with the proposed compliance time, and now reports that of the 142 affected tires, 25 have been returned in accordance with the instructions in Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, Revision 5. We also note that Gulfstream reports 90 percent compliance and Bombardier reports 82 percent compliance as of the closing date for comments on the NPRM. In addition, if we were to shorten the compliance time, it would be necessary for us to issue a supplemental NPRM to solicit additional public comment on the new, shorter compliance time. The additional time for comment would add at least 45 days to the total time it will take for the NPRM to become a final rule and thereby add 45 days more before the tires would be required to be inspected. Therefore, we have not changed the final rule in this regard. Explanation of Additional Service Information Bombardier has informed us that it has issued two service bulletins that give additional service information for identifying the affected serial numbers and replacing the tires as applicable. We have reviewed and added the following service bulletins to Note 1 of the final rule: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletins A700-32-019 and A700-1A11-32-007, both dated November 2, 2005. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,282 Gulfstream airplanes and about 104 Bombardier airplanes that use the affected tires in the worldwide fleet. This AD will affect about 1,035 Gulfstream airplanes, and about 104 Bombardier airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection for the affected serial numbers takes 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 AD for U.S. operators is $91,120, or $80 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:

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

(2)Is not a “significant rule” under 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 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 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): **2006-18-08 Transport Category Airplanes:** Amendment 39-14746. Docket No. FAA-2006-24667; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-009-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective October 11, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Goodyear aviation tires, part number 217K22-1, identified in Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, Revision 5, dated December 22, 2005; installed on various transport category airplanes, certificated in any category, including but not limited to Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, and Gulfstream Model G-1159, G-1159A, G-1159B, G-IV, G-IV-X, G-V, and G-V-SP series airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of tread separations and tread-area bulges on the nosewheel tires. We are issuing this AD to prevent tread separation from a nosewheel tire during takeoff or landing, which could result in compromised nosewheel steering or ingestion of separated tread by an engine, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane on the runway or in the air. 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. Inspection To Determine Serial Number (S/N), and Replacement

(f)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the nosewheel tires to determine whether an affected S/N is installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, Revision 5, dated December 22, 2005; and, except as provided by paragraph

(g)of this AD, replace any tire with an affected S/N before further flight in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Note 1: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletins A700-32-019 and A700-1A11-32-007, both dated November 2, 2005; and the Gulfstream alert customer bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD are additional sources of service information for identifying the affected serial numbers and replacing the tires as applicable. Table 1.—Gulfstream Alert Customer Bulletins Gulfstream model Alert customer bulletin Date G-1159

(GII)and G-1159B (G-IIB) series airplanes 30 October 12, 2005. G-1159A

(GIII)series airplanes 16 October 12, 2005. G-IV airplanes 34 October 12, 2005. G300 airplanes 34 October 12, 2005. G400 airplanes 34 October 12, 2005. GIV-X

(G350)series airplanes 3 October 12, 2005. GIV-X

(G450)series airplanes 3 October 12, 2005. GV series airplanes 24 October 12, 2005. GV-SP

(G500)series airplanes 5 October 12, 2005. GV-SP

(G550)series airplanes 5 October 12, 2005. Special Flight Permit

(g)A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) for one flight to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, provided no bulge is present on the tire with the affected S/N. Parts Installation

(h)After the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a nosewheel tire that has an S/N in the affected range identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, Revision 5, dated December 22, 2005. No Parts Return Required

(i)Although Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, Revision 5, dated December 22, 2005, specifies to return tires to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action. Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Original Issue of Service Bulletin

(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, dated October 11, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(l)You must use Goodyear Aviation Service Bulletin SB-2005-32-004, Revision 5, dated December 22, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 1144 E. Market Street, Akron, OH 44316-0001, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-14636 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24243; Airspace Docket No. 06-AWP-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Revocation of Class D Airspace; Elko, NV AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule, confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revokes a Class D Airspace at Elko, NV. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC October 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Tonish, Western Terminal Operations Airspace Specialist, AWP-5420.1, Federal Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, telephone

(310)725-6539. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on July 18, 2006 (17 FR 40651). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received with the comment period, the regulation will become effective on October 26, 2006, as per the direct final rule. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date. Issued in Los Angeles, California, on August 23, 2006. Leonard Mobley, Acting Director, Western Terminal Operations. [FR Doc. 06-7458 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

U.S. Code

CFR