Notices. Proposed rule
26,830 words·~122 min read·
/register/2007/01/26/07-353A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 17 Friday, January 26, 2007 Proposed Rules SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 126 RIN: 3245-AF44 HUBZone and Government Contracting AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA or Agency) Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program's definition of the term “employee.” SBA believes that the proposed amendment will simplify the existing definition and increase employment of HUBZone residents.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AF44 by any of the following methods:
(1)Federal Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments;
(2)E-mail: *hubzone@sba.gov.* Include RIN number in the subject line of the message;
(3)Fax:
(202)481-5593; or
(4)Mail or Hand Delivery: Michael McHale, Associate Administrator for the HUBZone Program, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D.J. Caulfield, HUBZone Program Office, at
(202)205-6457 or by e-mail at: *david.caulfield@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Authority and Background The HUBZone program was established pursuant to the HUBZone Act of 1997 (HUBZone Act), Title VI of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-135, enacted December 2, 1997. The stated purpose of the HUBZone program is to provide for Federal contracting assistance to qualified HUBZone small business concerns. 15 U.S.C. 657a(a). The HUBZone Act authorizes the Administrator of SBA to publish regulations implementing the program. Pub. L. 105-135, sec. 605. On January 28, 2002, SBA published a proposed rule seeking to amend several regulations including the definition of the term “employee” for the HUBZone program. 67 FR 3826. In this proposed rule, SBA sought to remove the provision concerning full-time equivalents. In addition, SBA proposed allowing leased or temporary employees to be counted as employees of the HUBZone small business concern (SBC). SBA decided not to implement any of the proposed changes to the definition of employee as a result of the comments received and issues raised by those comments. Instead, on May 13, 2004, SBA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and sought further public comment on the definition of the term “employee” as it related to the HUBZone program. 69 FR 26511. Summary of Comments to ANPRM and Response to Comments SBA received 9 comments to its ANPRM on this issue. All of the comments offered recommendations and creative approaches for defining the term “employee” for HUBZone program purposes. SBA reviewed each of the comments in drafting its proposed regulation and addresses its reasons for accepting or not accepting the comment when drafting the proposal. SBA notes that it has issued this rule as proposed and therefore will review again all comments received on the proposal, including any comments that are the same or similar to those received on the ANPRM. In addition, SBA notes that this proposed definition applies only to the HUBZone program, and the eligibility requirements of that program, with the exception of size. To be eligible for the HUBZone program and for a HUBZone contract, the SBC must be a small business as set forth in 13 CFR part 121 (this includes the calculation of number of employees for size purposes in 13 CFR 121.106). One comment noted that the full-time equivalent requirement is a good concept and should not be changed because it ensures that a maximum number of good jobs are created in the HUBZones. The commenter does not believe that the definition of full-time equivalent is confusing. Three commenters, however, supported any change that would allow part-time employees to be counted the same as full-time employees. These commenters believed it would be beneficial to those SBCs in the construction or services industry, since both industries employ part-time and temporary workers. In response to these comments, SBA has proposed mirroring, in general, the current size definition of the term “employee” and counting all individuals employed on a full-time, part-time, or other basis. SBA believes that it is important to have consistency among its various programs to the maximum extent practicable, unless a valid policy reason exists for differing policies. Thus, SBA has proposed some deviations from the size regulations regarding part-time and temporary employees, which is discussed in further detail in the next section of this preamble. SBA received one comment stating that subcontractors must be excluded from the definition of the term “employee.” The Agency notes that, generally, subcontractors are not treated as employees of a concern. However, there may be instances where the employees of a subcontractor are treated as employees of the HUBZone SBC based upon the totality of circumstances. This might occur, for example, if the prime and subcontractor are affiliated and the subcontractor had recently hired the HUBZone SBCs' former employees, so that the HUBZone SBC could maintain its HUBZone eligibility. Thus, SBA believes that there is no need to discuss the issue of subcontractor employees or to provide a specific exclusion for them in the regulations. One comment argued that SBA should exclude employees hired to perform on specific construction contracts from the calculation of the 35% HUBZone residency requirement because construction contractors typically perform work in non-HUBZone locations and must hire workers from those areas. As a result, the comment stated that those in the construction industry have a difficult time meeting the 35% HUBZone residency requirement. SBA understands the concerns expressed by the SBC. However, the purpose of the program is to infuse HUBZones with revenue by hiring residents of the HUBZones and having businesses located in HUBZones. If the SBC does not count a large percentage of its workforce toward the HUBZone residency requirement, the purpose of the program could be thwarted. In addition, SBA notes that the statute and implementing regulations allow the HUBZone SBC to “attempt to maintain” the requisite HUBZone residency requirement during the performance of a HUBZone contract. Thus, the statute recognizes that qualified HUBZone SBCs performing construction and service contracts may have a difficult time meeting the residency requirement during the performance of the HUBZone contract and has already addressed the issue. Therefore, SBA does not believe it is necessary to address this issue again in its regulations, in the definition of the term “employee.” One comment stated that the definition of the term “employee” should include a requirement that HUBZone SBCs pay its HUBZone and non-HUBZone employees the same or “classify” them the same. The commenter believes this would create a firewall against manipulation of employee status to qualify for HUBZone contracting preferences. In response to the comment, SBA notes that it does not have the authority to require companies to pay its employees certain amounts or to internally “classify” their employees a certain way. These are business decisions to be made by the company. The Agency received several comments addressing the issue of temporary and leased employees. The current definition provides that temporary and leased employees are not considered employees of a HUBZone SBC. SBA received one comment stating that SBA should delete the requirement that only “permanent” employees be considered employees of the HUBZone SBC. The comment stated that there was no clear meaning of “permanent.” Similarly, SBA also received comments recommending that SBA allow qualified HUBZone SBCs to count temporary employees as employees of the concern (or, at a minimum, to define the term “temporary employee”). One comment stated that temporary employees should be deemed employees of the HUBZone SBC only if they have been employed for at least 180 consecutive days. The comment stated that several SBCs, such as those dealing with agricultural commodities, retain a fluctuating number of temporary, leased employees to supplement a core of full-time employees. Because these employees generally have a history of transitory residences, and because they are not “permanent” but temporary, it is difficult for the HUBZone SBC to keep track of and maintain its HUBZone status. Specifically, the comment states it is difficult to keep track of and maintain the 35% residency requirement. The comment believes that counting a temporary worker as an employee only if they have worked a minimum of 180 consecutive days would ease this burden and allow the HUBZone SBC to take appropriate steps to ensure that its employees meet the program's residency requirement. Another commenter recommended that SBA add the concept of seasonal employee since many HUBZone SBCs need to add a large number of personnel for a very short period, such as agricultural crop harvesters during a short harvest season. These seasonal employees would be employed for less than 90 days at a time and their work requirement would be driven by a seasonal event. In addition, this commenter believed that the HUBZone SBC should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not to count the seasonal employees as employees of the concern. Similarly, one commenter supported including in the definition of employee those workers employed through a co-employee arrangement with a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). According to this comment, such an amendment to the HUBZone regulations would provide consistency with SBA's size rules set forth at 13 CFR 121.106. That regulation provides that for purposes of determining the size of a business concern, SBA generally considers employees obtained from a PEO as employees of the concern. In addition, this commenter noted that the HUBZone SBC with the PEO arrangement still has the ability to hire and fire the co-employees, as well as supervise them. In fact, the commenter stated that if a PEO fires an employee, the employee is still considered an employee of the HUBZone SBC. Therefore, this commenter believed that the HUBZone regulations should recognize that workers of a PEO employed by a qualified HUBZone SBC are “employees” of the HUBZone SBC. In comparison, one commenter suggested that the determination of whether someone is an employee of a HUBZone SBC should be based solely upon whether the SBC issues that person a W-2 form. This would exclude leased or co-employees who may work for the HUBZone SBC but receive their W-2's from another source. SBA agrees with most of these comments, and has proposed deleting the requirement that only “permanent” employees be considered employees of the HUBZone SBC. Thus, SBA proposes allowing HUBZone SBCs to count temporary employees, employees obtained from a temporary agency, leased employees, and co-employees of PEOs as employees of the HUBZone SBC. As discussed in more detail in the next section, many SBCs are using PEO and leasing arrangements for economic and business reasons. Ultimately, the leased or co-employees are truly employees of the HUBZone SBC (hired and fired by the HUBZone SBC, receive wages from the HUBZone SBC, etc.). Thus, SBA believes that, in general, they should be considered employees of the HUBZone SBC and has proposed a regulation addressing this issue. The Agency also proposes to address those cases where employees have union contracts, but ultimately work for the HUBZone SBC. SBA believes that because these individuals perform work for the HUBZone SBC, they should therefore be considered employees of the concern, not the union. However, the Agency believes that requiring a minimum or maximum number of workdays for temporary or “seasonal” or any other type of employee would create a burden because the SBC would have to calculate the HUBZone residency, full-time equivalency, principal office requirement *and* an additional minimum/maximum work requirement. This would likely be a great burden to a HUBZone SBC and it is not clear how such an additional requirement would prevent abuse of the program, further the mission of the HUBZone program or help HUBZone SBCs. One of the purposes of the program is to stimulate job growth in HUBZones. SBA believes that if the HUBZone SBC hires a HUBZone resident, even on a temporary basis, then this purpose is met. SBA received one comment stating that employees should be “grandfathered.” In other words, if an employee resides within a former HUBZone area, the employee should nonetheless still be considered a HUBZone resident for a minimum number of years. SBA does not believe it can make this change. The statute specifically defines the term HUBZone and requires, in general, that HUBZone SBCs meet a 35% HUBZone residency requirement. We do note that if the employee resides within a redesignated area (an area that was formerly a HUBZone but that remains a HUBZone for three years after it loses its HUBZone status), then the employee is considered to reside within a HUBZone. Thus, there is already a “grandfathering” provision for certain HUBZone areas and their residents. Proposed Regulation The current definition of the term “employee” for the HUBZone program ( *i.e.* , principal office and 35% HUBZone residency requirement) reads as follows: *Employee* means a person (or persons) employed by a HUBZone SBC on a full-time (or full-time equivalent), permanent basis. Full-time equivalent includes employees who work 30 hours per week or more. Full-time equivalent also includes the aggregate of employees who work less than 30 hours a week, where the work hours of such employees add up to at least a 40 hour work week. The totality of the circumstances, including factors relevant for tax purposes, will determine whether persons are employees of a concern. Temporary employees, independent contractors or leased employees are not employees for these purposes. Example 1: 4 employees each work 20 hours per week; SBA will regard that circumstance as 2 full-time equivalent employees. Example 2: 1 employee works 20 hours per week and 1 employee works 15 hours per week; SBA will regard that circumstance as not a full-time equivalent. Example 3: 1 employee works 15 hours per week, 1 employee works 10 hours per week, and 1 employee works 20 hours per week; SBA will regard that circumstance as 1 full-time equivalent employee. Example 4: 1 employee works 30 hours per week and 2 employees each work 15 hours per week; SBA will regard that circumstance as 1 full-time equivalent employee. 13 CFR 126.103. SBA is proposing to revise the definition of the term “employee” to:
(1)Delete the phrase “permanent” basis and the full-time equivalency requirement;
(2)allow HUBZone SBCs to count leased or temporary employees or employees obtained through a temporary agency, PEO arrangement or union agreement, as employees;
(3)specifically state that SBA relies on the totality of circumstances as further defined by Size Policy Statement No. 1 when determining whether individuals are employees of a concern;
(4)explain that volunteers are not employees;
(5)define volunteers as those persons that receive no compensation; and
(6)address the status of individuals that own all or part of the SBC but receive no compensation for work performed. First, SBA proposes to allow HUBZone SBCs to count full-time, part-time and those employed on an “other basis,” as well as leased and temporary employees, and employees obtained through temporary agencies, co-employer agreements and union agreements as employees, rather than only count employees hired on a “full-time,” “full-time equivalency” or “permanent” basis. We note that this would be consistent with SBA's size regulations, which state that in determining a concern's number of employees, SBA counts such persons, including persons obtained from a temporary employee agency, PEO or leasing concern. 13 CFR 121.106(a). However, SBA has proposed some deviations from the treatment of “employee” as compared to the size regulations. While all part-time and temporary employees are counted equally for size purposes, this proposed rule will count only those employees employed by the businesses concern for at least 40 hours per month ( *e.g.* , 40 hours in January, 40 hours in February etc.), for HUBZone program purposes. SBA does not want a firm to be able to claim HUBZone eligibility ( *e.g.* , the 35% residency requirement) where it merely hired a few HUBZone residents to work one or two hours a week. SBA believes that this minimum work requirement provides flexibility to the HUBZone SBCs and the employees who choose to work part-time, but at the same time minimizes possible abuses of the rule. With respect to leased and temporary employees, it is our understanding that for many reasons, including rising employee health care costs, small businesses are increasingly hiring temporary or leased employees, or co-employees from a PEO. *See e.g.* , “Putting a band-aid on small firm's health care costs,” *USA Today* (April 18, 2006) (available at *http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/2006-04-18-health-costs-usat_x.htm?csp=34* ). Thus, SBA believes that counting such persons as “employees” for HUBZone Program purposes will fulfill the statutory purpose and intent of the HUBZone Act by providing more job opportunities for HUBZone residents. Further, SBA notes that SBCs could qualify for the HUBZone program under the current regulations by claiming only a few employees, when in reality they have many employees, all of whom are leased and very few of whom live in a HUBZone. SBA believes that counting leased and temporary employees, as well as persons obtained through a PEO arrangement, will prevent such an abuse. SBA notes that if the totality of circumstances, however, dictates otherwise, then the individuals employed on a temporary or leased basis (or co-employees or union employees) may not be considered employees of the HUBZone SBC. Because of the numerous types of agreements in the public domain concerning these types of employees, SBA cannot state definitively that each of those types of employees are “employees” of the HUBZone SBC. However, in general, those employees are counted if the HUBZone SBC can hire and fire the employee, pays the employees' wages, supervises the employee, and meets any or all of the factors set forth in SBA's Size Policy Statement No. 1 (discussed in detail below). Second, SBA's HUBZone regulations state that the totality of the circumstances, including factors relevant for tax purposes, will determine whether persons are employees of a concern. 13 CFR 126.103. That means that SBA will review the totality of circumstances to determine whether those persons who “work” for another company are truly employees of the HUBZone SBC. The totality of circumstances language set forth in the HUBZone regulations can also be found in SBA's size regulations. When determining the size of a particular concern under an employee-based size standard ( *i.e.* , the number of employees that the concern has), SBA's size regulations require that the Agency count all individuals employed by the concern, including those employed on an “other basis.” 13 CFR 121.106(a). Like the HUBZone regulations, the size regulations also direct SBA to consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether certain individuals are to be considered employees of the concern in question. *Id.* The totality of the circumstances language first appeared in SBA Size Policy Statement No. 1, published in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 1986, 51 FR 6099. Size Policy Statement No. 1 gave notice of SBA's intended application and interpretation of the definition of number of employees. *Id.* According to Size Policy Statement No. 1, the intended application of the regulation was to broaden SBA's authority to find that certain individuals be considered employees of the concern on an “other basis.” *Id.* Specifically, SBA stated its concern that administrative precedent had interpreted the size regulation in an overly mechanical way and therefore could subject SBA's size determinations to abuse. Size Policy Statement No. 1 directs that SBA consider any information or data relevant to the question of whether an employer is deriving the usual benefits incident to employment of such individuals, and the circumstances under which the situation came to exist. *Id.* The Size Policy Statement directs SBA to consider the “totality of the circumstances,” including the following eleven factors: Did the company engage and select the employees? Does the company pay the employees wages and/or withhold employment taxes and/or provide employment benefits? Does the company have the power to dismiss the employees? Does the company have the power to control and supervise the employees' performance of their duties? Did the company procure the services of the employees from any employment contractor involved in close proximity to the date of self-certification as a small business? Did the company dismiss employees from its own payroll and replace them with the employees from any employment contractor involved? Were they replaced soon after their dismissal? Are the individual employees supplied by any employment contractor involving the same individuals that were dismissed by the company? Do the employees possess a type of expertise or skill that other companies in the same or similar lines of business normally employ in-house (as opposed to procuring by sub-contract or through an employment contractor)? Do the employees perform tasks normally performed by the regular employees of the business or which were previously performed by the company's own employees? Were the employees procured through an employment contractor to do other than fill in for regular employees of the company who are temporarily absent? Does the contract with the independent contractor have a term based on the term of an existing Government contract? *Id.* at 6100-6101. The presence of one or more of the factors in a particular case may but does not necessarily support a finding that the employees should be attributed to the business whose size (or HUBZone status) is an issue. *Id.* at 6101. SBA uses the guidance set forth in this Size Policy Statement in determining whether a person is an employee of a HUBZone SBC under the totality of circumstances test. At least one court has ruled that this is permissible and consistent with the HUBZone regulations. *Metro Machine Corp.* v. *SBA,* 305 F.Supp.2d 614 (E.D.Va. 2004), *aff'd,* 102 Fed.Appx. 352 (4th Cir. 2004). Thus, SBA intends to clarify in the regulations that it uses the guidance set forth in SBA's Size Policy Statement No. 1 in determining who is an employee of a HUBZone SBC. Third, SBA's proposed definition of the term “employee” provides that volunteers or any person who does not receive compensation for work performed for the HUBZone concern are not considered employees of the concern. SBA proposes to define the term “volunteer” to mean a person who receives no compensation, including no in-kind compensation, for work performed. Thus, a person who receives food, housing or other non-monetary compensation in exchange for work performed would not be considered a volunteer, and thus included as an employee of the HUBZone SBC. This proposal would make the HUBZone regulations consistent with SBA's size regulations, which provide the same. In addition, SBA believes that allowing volunteers to be counted as employees would not fulfill the purposes of the HUBZone Act—job creation and economic growth in underutilized communities. Along the same lines, SBA proposes to address the treatment of owners of a company who often work many long hours for the SBC, but refrain from receiving monetary compensation until the SBC is making a profit. SBA proposes to allow such owners to be considered “employees” of the concern, regardless of whether they receive compensation from the SBC. SBA believes that although these owners are not necessarily receiving monetary compensation for their work, they are nonetheless investing considerable time and energy into the SBC with the hope and expectation that their efforts ultimately will be rewarded. Therefore, SBA believes these persons should be considered an employee for HUBZone program purposes so long as they work a minimum of 40 hours a month. This would be consistent with the proposed general requirement that only persons employed by the HUBZone SBC and that work at least 40 hours per month are counted as employees of the concern. SBA seeks comments on these proposed amendments to the HUBZone definition of the term “employee.” The SBA would specifically like comments addressing the following:
(1)Whether 40 hours per month is a suitable minimum work requirement; and
(2)whether temporary employees should be employed for a specific period of time ( *i.e.* , 6 months) in order to be considered employees. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13132, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602) SBA has determined that this proposed rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35. Further, this proposed rule meets applicable standards set forth in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. This action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect. This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment. OMB has determined that this rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. SBA's Regulatory Impact Analysis is set forth below. Regulatory Impact Analysis 1. Is There a Need for the Regulatory Action? SBA's statutory mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial, procurement, business development, and advocacy programs. To assist the intended beneficiaries of these programs, SBA must establish distinct definitions regarding eligibility for its various programs. In the present case, SBA issued a proposed rule, and an ANPRM, to determine whether there was a need to amend the definition of the term “employee” for HUBZone program purposes. SBA received several responses to both the proposed rule and ANPRM. After evaluating these responses, as well as reviewing application of the current regulation in the certification, protest and appeal, and program examination processes, SBA has determined that the definition of employee must be amended to better serve the needs of SBCs and advance the goals of the HUBZone Act. The reasons for each of the proposed amendments is set forth in the preamble. 2. What Are the Potential Benefits and Costs of This Regulatory Action? The baseline for measuring the potential benefits of the rule is the status quo, *i.e.* , no change in the regulation. SBA believes that the proposed rule will maximize the net benefits to society, including potential economic advantages. Specifically, the benefits of these proposed amendments would accrue to those SBCs that utilize part-time, temporary or leased employees (as well as PEOs and union workers) because they would no longer be “penalized” for using those types of workers. If the rule is finalized as proposed, SBCs that utilize such workers would be able to count them toward the HUBZone program's 35% residency and principal office requirements. In addition, this proposed rule would aid small, start-up companies where the owner works for the company but receives no compensation for his/her efforts. SBA also believes that the Historically Underutilized Business Zones—the areas that the HUBZone program are meant to help—will benefit from the rule. HUBZone SBCs can now hire leased and temporary employees in order to “circumvent” the 35% HUBZone residency and principal office requirement. In other words, these companies hire only a few employees and then lease or hire several temporary workers. Because SBA does not count the leased and temporary workers as “employees,” these workers are not part of the 35% residency calculation or principle office calculation. This means that there are fewer jobs and other benefits flowing to the HUBZones. SBA believes the proposed rule would increase the number of jobs and other benefits to HUBZones. SBA believes that if the proposed rule is published as final, there may be current qualified HUBZone SBCs that no longer qualify for the program because they hire leased and temporary employees that are non-HUBZone residents, and would have to count those personnel as employees of the concern. However, SBA also believes that this rule will allow other SBCs to qualify for the program. SBA believes that if there are increases in the number of concerns participating in the HUBZone program and in the number of HUBZone contract dollars awarded, there may be attendant cost increases to the government in terms of the costs of goods and services sold and administrative costs. However, existing provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation concerning the determination of “fair and reasonable” pricing will mitigate any significant monetary costs to the government as a result of this proposed rule. In addition, SBA believes that the rule will provide greater administrative efficiency and program integrity. Because the amendments in this proposed rule clarify some of the program's requirements, the rule will likely streamline and improve the effective administration of the HUBZone program. It will also enhance SBA's ability to administer the program with existing resources and better focus the program benefits on the businesses that operate in areas of low income or high unemployment. Further, as explained in detail above, SBA believes that allowing SBCs to count temporary and leased employees (as well as co-employees and union employees) will protect the integrity of the program. Overall, projecting winners and losers from regulatory changes in the HUBZone program cannot be done with certainty. SBA believes that increasing the efficiency and access to the HUBZone program will, over time, result in increased use of the program and a higher probability that the HUBZone Program will meet its original objectives to create jobs and increase capital investment in HUBZone communities. Thus, SBA believes that the benefits of the proposed rule outlined above, including the benefits to the HUBZone areas (and the fact that many new HUBZone SBCs will employ HUBZone residents) maximizes the net benefits to society. 3. Were Any Alternatives Considered? SBA considered many alternatives to the rule proposed. First, SBA considered not amending the rule. However, during the certification, protest and appeal, and program examination process, the same issues would materialize. These issues relate to the use of temporary or leased employees, as well as co-employees. In addition, issues arise concerning start-up companies and whether their owners who work many long hours for the company could be counted as an employee despite the fact the owner receives no compensation. Thus, SBA considered issuing policy notices, for example, rather than amending the regulations. These notices, however, are generally not published material like regulations, and would hinder a SBC's access to this needed information. In addition, SBA considered amending the definition of the term “employee” by retaining the provision regarding full-time equivalents. SBA received several comments on the issue of full-time equivalent in response to its prior proposed rule and the ANPRM, which are discussed above, including at least one stating the use of full-time equivalents is appropriate. SBA, however, believes that this provision has caused confusion amongst SBCs and therefore, the SBCs may not be strictly following the full-time equivalent requirement. SBA had also considered deleting the full-time equivalent requirement with the caveat that the individual work a minimum of 10 hours per week. However, SBA was concerned that SBCs could easily circumvent the regulation and have employees, including those that do not reside in a HUBZone work, less than 10 hours for just one week, and not be counted toward the principal office or 35% HUBZone residency requirement. SBA also considered requiring the employees work a minimum of 10 hours per week averaged over a single payroll period. However, one problem with this alternative is that businesses have different payroll periods and thus, a person could be an employee of one concern, but not another, depending on how the company defines the term payroll period. SBA also considered calculating a HUBZone SBCs employees similar to the requirements set forth for size in 13 CFR part 121 ( *e.g.* , total hours for year divided by 2080). However, SBA believed this would conflict with the HUBZone definition of principal office. In addition, SBA had considered setting forth all eleven criteria considered under the totality of circumstances test set forth in Size Policy Statement No. 1. However, SBA reviewed the Size Policy Statement and believes that the entire policy statement must be reviewed, in addition to the eleven criteria, in order to determine whether or not a person is an “employee.” Thus, SBA believes it would be best to simply reference the policy notice, which is a publicly available document, rather than set forth all of the criteria and other factors in the regulation. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the HUBZone Proposed Regulations SBA certifies that this proposed rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* Thus, SBA has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The RFA provides that when preparing such an analysis, an agency shall address all of the following: the reasons, objectives, and legal basis for the proposed rule; the kind and number of small entities that would be affected; the projected recordkeeping, reporting, and other requirements; Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule. This IRFA considers these points and the impact of these proposed regulations on small entities. 1. Reasons for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule The HUBZone Program was established pursuant to the HUBZone Act of 1997 (HUBZone Act), Title VI of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-135, enacted December 2, 1997. The purpose of the HUBZone Program is “to provide for Federal contracting assistance to qualified HUBZone small business concerns.” 15 U.S.C. 657a(a). The HUBZone Act directed SBA's Administrator to promulgate regulations to implement the HUBZone Program. SBA's HUBZone regulations are set forth in 13 CFR part 126. Part 126 sets forth key definitions, eligibility criteria for certification into the HUBZone Program, and information on HUBZone contracts, among other things. Since the inception of the program, SBA has received thousands of applications for certification into the HUBZone Program and has certified over 13,000 concerns into the program. In addition, Federal agencies have awarded thousands of HUBZone contracts. As a result, SBA has become aware of amendments that should be made to the program's regulations. These amendments include a revised definition for the term “employees.” SBA believes that the proposed amendment to the definition of the term “employee” will ease program eligibility requirements perceived to be burdensome on concerns, and streamline the operation of the HUBZone Program. 2. Legal Basis This action, including publication of proposed rules, is authorized pursuant to Pub. L. 105-135, sec. 601 *et seq.* , 111 Stat. 2592 and 15 U.S.C. 632(a). 3. Definition of Small Entity In making its determination that this proposed rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, SBA used the definition of small business set forth in section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1) & (2). According to that section, a “small business concern” is one that:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by SBA. *Id.* SBA has established such additional criteria in its regulations at 13 CFR part 121. SBA used this criteria for its analysis as well. 4. The Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply a. Description and Estimate The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of SBCs that may be affected by the proposed rule, if adopted. The specific group of SBCs affected the most by this proposed rule are those who participate in Federal Government contracting and are in the services or construction industry. While there is no precise estimate for the number of SBCs that will be affected by this proposed rule, SBA has reasoned the following. SBA believes that over 30,000 SBCs will apply for certification as qualified HUBZone SBCs over the life of the program. This number is based upon 1992 census data, the number of HUBZone SBCs registered in Central Contractor Registration (CCR), and a reasonable extrapolation of this data to account for growth. In the past few years, SBA has received thousands of applications for the HUBZone Program and has certified over 13,000 SBCs into the program. SBA believes that the incentives available through participation in the program, *i.e.* , HUBZone set-asides and price evaluation preferences, will result in additional SBCs relocating to HUBZones. SBA is unable to predict the number of SBCs that will relocate to HUBZones and be eligible for the program, but estimates that approximately 30,000 SBCs are now eligible or will become eligible. Of the 30,000 SBCs that have a principal office located in a HUBZone, SBA believes that most will be directly affected by this proposed rule. This is based on the fact that of the over 13,000 HUBZone SBCs listed in CCR, over 11,000 list services and construction as the general nature of their business. Thus, it appears that most qualified HUBZone SBCs are in those industries. According to the comments received, SBCs in the construction and services industries use temporary and leased employees. The proposed amendment to the definition of the term “employee” will allow leased and temporary employees to be considered employees of a concern. These leased and temporary employees would be counted toward the 35% HUBZone residency and principal office requirements. At one point, such employees comprised approximately 2-5% of the work force in the U.S. economy. *Labor Shortages, Needs, and Related Issues in Small and Large Businesses* , Nov. 2, 1999 (report prepared for the Office of Advocacy) (available at *www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs195atot.pdf* ). In addition, the report stated that small businesses accounted for the employment of about 40% of such employees. Id. Although SBA does not know exactly how many SBCs eligible for the HUBZone Program use leased or temporary employees, this data further evidences that many concerns may be affected by this rule. b. How Each Small Entity Will Be Affected As discussed above, the SBCs that will be affected by this rule are those who participate in federal government contracting, and use leased or temporary employees. For those SBCs that participate in Federal Government contracting and use leased or temporary employees, the proposed rule will allow the concern to count these employees toward the 35% HUBZone residency and principal office requirement. Thus, a larger portion of the concern's workforce would have to be counted toward this requirement. 5. Projected Recordkeeping, Reporting and Other Compliance Requirements The proposed rule does not impose new reporting or recordkeeping requirements on concerns applying to be certified as qualified HUBZone SBCs or concerns already certified. The regulations have always required an application for certification and re-certification. 6. Relevant Federal Regulations Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rule SBA's size regulations also define the term “employee.” The proposed amendments to the HUBZone program's definition of the term “employee” will overlap, but will be consistent with, the size regulations because both will count leased and temporary employees as well as co-employees. In addition, both will address volunteers, and define the term. 7. Significant Alternatives In general, one alternative is not to amend the current regulations. SBA believes, however, that amendments to the current regulations are necessary because it would be in the best interest of SBCs to streamline the regulations and clarify the definition of the term “employee.” SBA also reviewed several alternatives to specific amendments. The current HUBZone definition of the term “employee” states that an employee of a SBC includes full-time equivalents. 13 CFR 126.103. Full-time equivalents are defined as employees who work 30 or more hours a week. It also includes the aggregate of employees who work less than 30 hours a week, where the work hours of such employees add up to at least a 40-hour work week. SBA does not currently consider leased or temporary employees, or independent contractors, to be employees of a concern for HUBZone program purposes. SBA had several choices when amending this definition, including:
(1)Keeping the definition the same;
(2)including leased and temporary employees as HUBZone employees, but keeping the use of full-time equivalents; or
(3)not including leased and temporary employees as HUBZone employees, and not using full-time equivalents. (For a detailed discussion on the alternatives considered, see the discussion above in the Regulatory Impact Analysis.) The purpose of the current definition of employee is to focus on those jobs that best fulfill the statutory purpose of the HUBZone Act. That is why SBA proposes to allow a concern to count part-time employees, but only if the part-time employees work a minimum of 40 hours per week. SBA believes that counting part-time, leased and temporary and full-time equivalents as employees of the HUBZone SBC will still fulfill the statutory purpose and intent of the HUBZone Act by providing more job opportunities for HUBZone residents, albeit temporary ones. For example, if a concern has 15 employees and 5 are temporary or leased employees, then, under the current rule, 35% of 10 of the concern's employees must be HUBZone residents. Under the proposed rule, 35% of all 15 of the concern's employees must be HUBZone residents. Thus, this proposed definition would impose a more stringent standard on the concern, which SBA believes will increase employment opportunities in HUBZones. Finally, SBA believes that this definition of employee is similar to the definition set forth in its size regulations, 13 CFR part 121. The size regulations define employee as all individuals employed on a full-time, part-time, or other basis. 13 CFR 121.106(a). SBA will consider the totality of the circumstances, including factors relevant for tax purposes, in determining whether individuals are employees of the concern in question. This totality of the circumstances language stems from SBA Size Policy Statement No. 1, published in the **Federal Register** on February 20, 1986, 51 FR 6099. Basically, Size Policy Statement No. 1 states that SBA will consider temporary or leased employees to be employees of a SBC on an “other basis” if the SBC is deriving the usual benefits incident to employment of such individuals and the totality of the circumstances requires so. 51 FR 6099-6101. SBA decided to refer to this Size Policy Statement, rather than include all of the criteria and factors, in the regulation. SBA believes that referring SBCs and the general public to the policy document on the issue would provide everyone with a better understanding of the totality of circumstances. In sum, the proposed definition of employee chosen by SBA for its HUBZone program is similar to SBA's size regulations and this should be less confusing and less of a burden on small businesses. However, we note that while the SBA is seeking comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, the Agency would specifically like comments addressing whether 40 hours per month is a suitable minimum work requirement. 8. Cost Analysis The proposed rule may impact those qualified HUBZone SBCs that hire temporary and leased employees and do not count them toward their 35% HUBZone residency requirement or principal office requirement. These HUBZone SBC may or may not still be eligible for the program, once the rule becomes final. If these HUBZone SBCs are no longer qualified for the program, they will lose future HUBZone contract opportunities. However, the proposed rule will allow other SBCs to become eligible for the program. These HUBZone SBCs will have the opportunity to compete for future HUBZone contracts. The proposed rule will not impact substantially SBA's costs. SBA does not know the economic impact or costs of the proposed rule on other Federal agencies. Federal agencies issuing HUBZone contracts will have to train and educate their employees on the proposed rule, if adopted. This cost should be minimal. The increase in the number of HUBZone SBCs in the program will increase competition and this may result in lower prices/awards, thereby reducing Federal procurement costs. 9. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, SBA has determined that this proposed rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 126 Government procurement, Small businesses. For the reasons set forth above, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 126, as follows: PART 126—HUBZONE PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 13 CFR part 126 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(a), 632(j), 632(p) and 657a. 2. Amend § 126.103 by revising the definition of the term “employee” to read as follows: § 126.103 What definitions are important in the HUBZone program? *Employee* means all individuals employed on a full-time, part-time, or other basis, so long as that individual works a minimum of 40 hours per month. This includes employees obtained from a temporary employee agency, professional employee organization, leasing concern, or through a union agreement. SBA will consider the totality of the circumstances, including criteria used by the IRS for Federal income tax purposes and those set forth in SBA's Size Policy Statement No. 1, in determining whether individuals are employees of a concern. Volunteers ( *i.e.* , individuals who receive no compensation, including no in-kind compensation, for work performed) are not considered employees. However, if an individual has an ownership interest in and works for the HUBZone SBC a minimum of 40 hours per month, that owner is considered an employee regardless of whether or not the individual receives compensation. Dated: September 21, 2006. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on January 23, 2007. [FR Doc. E7-1284 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27016; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-176-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting the electrical connectors of the fire bottles for the forward and aft baggage compartments and for the auxiliary power unit
(APU)and engine nacelles to determine if they are connected correctly; and doing related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. This proposed AD would add a requirement to install/modify lanyards, mounts, and clamps to the forward and aft baggage compartment, APU, and engine nacelle fire extinguishing systems. This proposed AD would also require installation and removal procedures for certain fire bottles and fire extinguisher cartridges. This proposed AD also adds two airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD results from reports of the electrical connectors for the fire bottles in the forward and aft baggage compartments, APU, and engine nacelle being cross-connected. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cross-connection of the fire bottles and to prevent cross-connection, which could result in failure of the fire bottles to discharge and consequent inability to extinguish a fire in the affected areas. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ezra Sasson, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7320; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27016; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-176-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On June 7, 2005, we issued AD 2005-12-17, amendment 39-14133 (70 FR 35172, June 17, 2005), for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. That AD requires inspecting the electrical connectors of the fire bottles for the forward and aft baggage compartments and for the auxiliary power unit
(APU)and engine nacelles to determine if they are connected correctly; and doing related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. That AD resulted from reports of the electrical connectors for the fire bottles in the forward and aft baggage compartments being cross-connected. We issued that AD to detect and correct cross-connection of the fire bottles, which could result in failure of the fire bottles to discharge and consequent inability to extinguish a fire in the affected areas. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2005-12-17, it was determined that the lengths of the lanyards may not be sufficiently different to prevent cross-connection of cartridges if the tie wraps or associated clipping are not located as intended. Relevant Service Information Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A84-26-06, Revision ‘A,’ dated June 6, 2005 (Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-26-06, dated May 12, 2005, was referenced as the appropriate source of service information for doing the actions specified in AD 2005-12-17). Revision ‘A’ contains essentially the same procedures as the original issue. Revision 'A' clarifies an operational check and other minor editorial changes. Bombardier has also issued Service Bulletin 84-26-07, Revision ‘B,’ dated November 1, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures to install/modify lanyards, mounts, and clamps to the forward and aft baggage compartment, APU, and engine nacelle fire extinguishing systems. The service bulletin includes two additional airplanes in its effectivity that are not in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-26-06. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, mandated the service information and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-14R1, dated May 8, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada. Bombardier has also issued the temporary revisions
(TRs)specified in the table below to the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 400 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Program Support Manual
(PSM)1-84-2. The TRs specify installation and removal procedures for certain fire bottles and fire extinguisher cartridges. Table—Bombardier TRs TR Date PSM chapter 26-017 May 10, 2005 26-21-01. 26-018 May 10, 2005 26-21-01. 26-019 May 10, 2005 26-22-02. 26-020 May 10, 2005 26-22-03. 26-021 May 10, 2005 26-22-11. 26-022 May 10, 2005 26-22-11. 26-023 May 11, 2005 26-23-01. 26-024 May 11, 2005 26-22-16. 26-025 May 11, 2005 26-22-16. 26-026 May 11, 2005 26-21-06. 26-027 May 11, 2005 26-21-06. The TRs have been incorporated into Bombardier Dash 8 Series 400 AMM, PSM 1-84-2, Revision 21, dated December 5, 2005. Bombardier has also issued Revision 22 of the Dash 8 Series 400 AMM, PSM 1-84-2, dated June 5, 2006. Revision 22 contains the same procedures as those specified in the TRs and incorporated into Revision 21. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2005-12-17 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require installing/modifying lanyards, mounts, and clamps to the forward and aft baggage compartment, APU, and engine nacelle fire extinguishing systems. This proposed AD would also require installation and removal procedures for certain fire bottles and fire extinguisher cartridges. This proposed AD would also add two airplanes to the applicability. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection (required by AD 2005-12-17) 2 $80 $0 $160 19 $3,040. Modification (new proposed action) 4 80 Up to $200 520 21 Up to $10,920. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14133 (70 FR 35172, June 17, 2005) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27016; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-176-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-12-17. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001 through 4107 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of the electrical connectors for the fire bottles in the forward and aft baggage compartments, auxiliary power unit (APU), and engine nacelle being cross-connected. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cross-connection of the fire bottles and to prevent cross-connection, which could result in failure of the fire bottles to discharge and consequent inability to extinguish a fire in the affected areas. 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 2005-12-17 Inspection and Corrective Action
(f)For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4105 inclusive: Within 14 days after July 5, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-12-17), inspect the electrical connectors of the fire bottles for the forward and aft baggage compartments and for the APU and engine nacelles to determine if they are connected correctly; and, before further flight, do the related investigative and corrective actions, as applicable; by doing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-26-06, dated May 12, 2005; or Revision ‘A,’ dated June 6, 2005. Although the service bulletins specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. New Requirements of This AD Installation/Modification
(g)For all airplanes: Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, install/modify lanyards, mounts, and clamps to the forward and aft baggage compartment, APU, and engine nacelle fire extinguishing systems by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-07, Revision ‘B,’ dated November 1, 2006. Installation and Removal of Bottles and Cartridges
(h)For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4105 inclusive: As of the effective date of this AD, whenever any of the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (h)(6), and (h)(7) of this AD are done, those actions must be done in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (or its delegated agent). Bombardier Dash 8 Series 400 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Product Support Manual
(PSM)1-84-2, Revision 22, dated June 5, 2006, is one approved method.
(1)Installation and removal of nacelle fire bottles.
(2)Installation of aft high-rate fire bottles.
(3)Installation of forward high-rate fire bottles.
(4)Installation and removal of low-rate fire bottles.
(5)Installation of APU fire bottles.
(6)Installation and removal of low-rate fire extinguisher cartridges.
(7)Installation and removal of nacelle fire extinguisher cartridges. Actions Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin
(i)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-07, dated June 15, 2005; and Revision ‘A,’ dated February 21, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD, provided the intended restriction of the connectors was done as specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-26-07, Revision ‘B,’ dated November 1, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(k)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2005-14R1, dated May 8, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1201 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27014; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-253-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 Airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as un-damped extension of the main landing gear (MLG), potentially leading to loss of side stay integrity and then MLG collapse. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27014; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-253-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the aviation authority for the European Union, has issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0324-E, dated October 20, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that during full-scale fatigue tests, the retraction link failed on the latest growth production standard MLG (main landing gear) prior to its expected life limit. Investigations confirm that the root cause of this premature fracture is due to high lug stress. The retraction link is included in the ALS (Airworthiness Limitation section) Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Item—and is currently limited to 35,200 flight cycles (FC). Its fracture causes un-damped extension of the MLG, potentially leading to loss of side stay integrity and then MLG collapse, which constitutes an unsafe condition. The aim of the MCAI is to mandate the reduced retraction link life limit and replacement of any retraction link that has exceeded this new limit. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued All Operators Telexes A330-32A3208, dated October 18, 2006; and A340-32A4252, dated October 18, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 28 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $22,400, or $800 per product. 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27014; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-253-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by February 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)Noune. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330 airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; all serial numbers fitted with MLG (main landing gear) retraction link Part Number
(PN)201489311 (LH (left-hand) side) or PN 201489312 (RH (right-hand) side). Reason
(d)The MCAI states that during full-scale fatigue tests, the retraction link failed on the latest growth production standard MLG (main landing gear) prior to its expected life limit. Investigations confirm that the root cause of this premature fracture is due to high lug stress. The retraction link is included in the ALS (Airworthiness Limitation section) Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Item—and currently limited to 35,200 flight cycles (FC). Its fracture causes un-damped extension of the MLG, potentially leading to loss of side stay integrity and then MLG collapse, which constitutes an unsafe condition. The aim of the MCAI is to mandate the reduced retraction link life limit and replacement of any retraction link that has exceeded this new limit. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Prior to the accumulation of 8,300 total landings on the retraction link assembly or within 39 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the retraction link assembly in accordance with the instructions defined in Airbus All Operators Telex A330-32A3208, dated October 18, 2006; or Airbus All Operators Telex A340-32A4252, dated October 18, 2006; as applicable.
(2)Within 39 days after the effective date of this AD, report to Airbus the life accumulation information of each retraction link assembly affected by this AD in accordance with Airbus All Operators Telex A330-32A3208, dated October 18, 2006; or Airbus All Operators Telex A340-32A4252, dated October 18, 2006; as applicable. Note 1: This reduced life limit will be incorporated within the next revision of the Airbus A330/A340 ALS Part 1. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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.
(2)Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0324-E, dated October 20, 2006; and Airbus All Operators Telex A330-32A3208, dated October 18, 2006; and Airbus All Operators Telex A340-32A4252, dated October 18, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1202 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25419; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-055-AD] 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: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors with new, stronger latches, and other specified actions. The original NPRM resulted from reports of certain lavatory waste compartment doors opening during flight due to movement of the waste compartment during takeoff, because the mini-latches installed on the doors of those compartments lose their strength over time. This action revises the original NPRM by adding airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent the inability of the waste compartment doors to adequately contain a fire inside the lavatory waste compartment, and consequent uncontained fire and smoke within a lavatory during flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by February 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *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 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 proposed 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: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-25419; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-055-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, 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 supplemental NPRM. 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 in the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for an airworthiness directive
(AD)(the “original NPRM”). The original NPRM applies to certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42776). The original NPRM proposed to require replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors with new, stronger latches, and other specified actions. Since we issued the original NPRM, we have received Revision 01 of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated January 9, 2006. The procedures in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, Revision 01, are essentially identical to those in the original issue of the service bulletin, dated July 21, 2005, which we referred to as the appropriate source of service information for the proposed latch replacement in the original NPRM. EMBRAER issued Revision 01 of the service bulletin to add airplanes to the effectivity and to transmit Revision 1 of C & D Aerospace Service Bulletin 170-18616-25-023, dated November 29, 2005. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Make Service Documents Available to the Public by Incorporation by Reference and Publication in DMS The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that we incorporate by reference the essential service documents in the NPRM. MARPA states that ADs are typically based upon service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA asserts that, if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not only be referred to, but also incorporated into the AD. MARPA adds that manufacturer's service documents are privately authored instruments, generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. When a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA notes that the NPRM is one of these public documents, but does not incorporate by reference that service document. Therefore, the NPRM, as proposed, attempts to require compliance with a public law by reference to a private writing. MARPA believes that public laws, by definition, should be public and that they cannot rely on private writings. We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. The final rule for this action will incorporate by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information. MARPA also requests that essential service documents be published in the Docket Management System (DMS). MARPA states that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in either the **Federal Register** or DMS. MARPA also states that the purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals. MARPA adds that, traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA further adds that a new class of affected individuals has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators. This new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and/or organizations repairing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Parts Manufacturer Approval”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA states that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. In regard to the commenter's request that service documents be made available to the public by publication in the **Federal Register** , we agree that incorporation by reference was authorized to reduce the volume of material published in the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations. However, as specified in the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, the Director of the Office of the Federal Register
(OFR)decides when an agency may incorporate material by reference. As the commenter is aware, the OFR files documents for public inspection on the workday before the date of publication of the rule at its office in Washington, DC. As stated in the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, when documents are filed for public inspection, anyone may inspect or copy filed documents during the OFR's hours of business. Further questions regarding publication of documents in the **Federal Register** or incorporation by reference should be directed to the OFR. In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment. Request To Reference Parts Manufacturer Approval
(PMA)Parts The same commenter, MARPA, also requests that the language in the NPRM be changed to permit installation of PMA equivalent parts. MARPA asserts that mandating a certain part-numbered part to the exclusion of all other parts, in some cases, prevents installation of perfectly good parts, while also prohibiting development of new parts, “* * * permitted under [14 CFR] 21.303.” MARPA further asserts that this prohibition risks removing the AD out of the realm of safety and into the realm of economics, since prohibiting the development, sale, and use of a perfectly good part has nothing to do with safety. MARPA continues, stating that the NPRM, as written, does not comply with FAA Order 8040.2, which allows replacement parts under section 21.303 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303) based on a finding of identicality. MARPA goes on to state that it believes “* * * the practice of requiring an [alternative method of compliance] AMOC to install a PMA part should be stopped.” It is “* * * tantamount to illogically stating that all PMA parts are inherently defective and that they all require an additional layer of approval when the [original equipment manufacturer] OEM part is determined to be defective.” MARPA further states that, if the PMA part is deemed defective, it must be deemed so in the AD, not simply implied by a “catch-all AMOC requirement.” In addition, MARPA refers to differing language used in other ADs addressing the use of PMA parts and asserts that, because the NPRM differs in treatment of PMA parts from other ADs, “* * * the mandates contained in Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866 are not being met.” That paragraph requires that all agencies act uniformly on a given issue. The NPRM did not address PMA parts, as provided in draft FAA Order 8040.2, because the Order was only a draft that was out for comment at the time. After issuance of the NPRM, the Order was revised and issued as FAA Order 8040.5 with an effective date of September 29, 2006. FAA Order 8040.5 does not address PMA parts in ADs. We acknowledge the need to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed in ADs related to mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI). We are currently examining all aspects of this issue, including input from industry. Once we have made a final determination, we will consider how our policy regarding 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. The FAA recognizes the need for standardization of this issue and is currently in the process of reviewing issues that address the use of PMAs in ADs at the national level. However, the Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular 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. Request To Replace Only the Lavatory Waste Compartment Latches EMBRAER requests that we revise paragraph
(f)of the original NPRM to require replacement of only the latches for the lavatory waste compartment door. EMBRAER asserts that only those latches need to be replaced, because none of the other doors identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005, affect fire containment, the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. EMBRAER states that the wording in paragraph
(f)of the original NPRM, the mandatory accomplishment of “* * * all the actions, except for the forward and aft lavatory mirror rework, specified in the Accomplishment Instructions * * *,” will require replacement of several latches that are not associated with the identified unsafe condition. Therefore EMBRAER suggests that we identify the specific paragraphs of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin that need to be done to replace just the latches for the lavatory waste compartment. We agree that only the latches for the lavatory waste compartment need to be replaced to address the subject unsafe condition. Therefore, as EMBRAER suggests, we have revised paragraph
(f)of this supplemental NPRM to refer to the specific paragraphs of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin necessary to replace only the latches for the lavatory waste compartment door. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Replacement of lavatory waste compartment door latches 2 $80 $0 $160 75 $12,000 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2006-25419; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-055-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 20, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, Revision 01, dated January 9, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of certain lavatory waste compartment doors opening during flight due to movement of the waste compartment during takeoff, because the mini-latches installed on those doors lose their strength over time. We are issuing this AD to prevent the inability of the waste compartment doors to adequately contain a fire inside the lavatory waste compartment, and consequent uncontained fire and smoke within a lavatory during flight. 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. Replacement of Mini-Latches on Certain Lavatory Waste Compartment Doors
(f)Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Replace the mini-latches for the forward and aft lavatory waste compartment doors by accomplishing all the actions, except for the forward and aft lavatory mirror rework, specified in paragraphs 3.B. and 3.G. of paragraph 4., “Appendix 1,” of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, Revision 01, dated January 9, 2006. Note 1: EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, Revision 01, dated January 9, 2006, refers to C & D Aerospace Service Bulletin 170-18616-25-023, Revision 1, dated November 29, 2005, as an additional source of service information for replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors required by paragraph
(f)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Issue of Service Information
(g)Replacements done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with paragraphs 3.B. and 3.G. of paragraph 4., “Appendix 1,” of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(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
(i)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-11-01, effective December 8, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1215 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27012; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-188-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-605R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, A310-204, A310-304, and A310-308 Airplanes Equipped With General Electric CF6-80C2 Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, C4-605R Variant F, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes; and Model A310 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection for damage of the integrated drive generator
(IDG)electrical harness and pyramid arm, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would add new repetitive inspections, which, when initiated, would terminate the inspection required by the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require repairing damage and protecting the harness. The proposed AD would also provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD also removes certain airplanes from the applicability of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from a report of structural damage on the forward pyramid arm of an engine pylon due to chafing of the IDG electrical harness against the structure of the pyramid arm. We are proposing this AD to prevent electrical arcing in the engine pylon, which could result in loss of the relevant alternating current
(AC)bus bar, reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, and possible loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27012; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-188-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On April 16, 2004, we issued AD 2004-09-01, amendment 39-13590 (69 FR 23090, April 28, 2004), for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, C4-605R Variant F, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes; and Model A310 series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection for damage of the integrated drive generator
(IDG)electrical harness and pyramid arm, and repair if necessary. That AD resulted from a report of structural damage on the forward pyramid arm of an engine pylon during a scheduled maintenance check. Investigation revealed that the damage was caused by chafing of the IDG electrical harness against the structure of the pyramid arm. We issued that AD to prevent electrical arcing within the engine pylon, which could result in loss of the relevant alternating current
(AC)bus bar, reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, and possible loss of control of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued The preamble to AD 2004-09-01 explains that we considered the requirements “interim action” and were considering further rulemaking. We have now determined that further rulemaking is necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that determination. Since we issued AD 2004-09-01, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, has advised us that a repetitive inspection program is necessary to ensure the functionality of the AC bus bar and the structural integrity of the pylon. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued the service bulletins identified in the following table. Service Bulletins Actions Airbus Service Bulletin Affected model Inspection (repetitive inspections of the IDG electrical harness and pylon forward pyramid arms), and protection of the harness A300-24-6097, dated March 3, 2006, including Appendix 01 A300-600 series airplanes. A310-24-2100, dated March 3, 2006, including Appendix 01 A310 series airplanes. Modification (replacement of the bracket feeder on the pylons) A300-54-6038, dated May 12, 2006 A300-600 series airplanes. A310-54-2039, dated May 12, 2006 A310 series airplanes. Service Bulletins A300-24-6097 and A310-24-2100 describe procedures for: • Doing a detailed visual inspection for wear on the pyramid arms; • Repairing wear that is within certain limits; • Contacting Airbus for repair instructions if the wear exceeds those limits; • Doing a detailed visual inspection of the cables; • Repairing damaged cables; • Protecting the harness, including installing adhesive tape, lacing tape, and adhesive sealant; and • Reporting inspection results to Airbus. The modification described in Service Bulletins A300-54-6038 and A310-54-2039 eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections specified above. Accomplishing the actions specified in Service Bulletins A300-24-6097 and A310-24-2100 is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated that service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0155, dated June 1, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0155 superseded French airworthiness directive F-2004-039 (referenced in FAA AD 2004-09-01). The EASA provided for the bracket feeder replacement as optional terminating action to the repetitive inspections. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. 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 airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would: • Supersede AD 2004-09-01; • Retain the requirements of AD 2004-09-01; • Require new repetitive inspections for damage of the IDG electrical harness and pylon forward pyramid arms, which, when initiated, would terminate the inspection required by AD 2004-09-01; • Require repairing damage and protecting the harness; • Provide for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections; • Remove certain airplanes (including certain Model A300-600 and Model A310 series airplanes and those modified in production) from the applicability of AD 2004-09-01; and • Require sending the inspection results to Airbus for each repetitive inspection. Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Information/EASA Airworthiness Directive The applicability of EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0155 excludes airplanes on which the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6038 or A310-54-2039 have been done in service. However, we have not excluded those airplanes in the applicability of this proposed AD; rather, this proposed AD would provide for that modification as an option to the required repetitive inspections. Including these actions would ensure that the repetitive inspections would continue on all affected airplanes until accomplishment of the modification would allow the inspections to be terminated. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this proposed AD unless an alternative method of compliance is approved. Service Bulletins A300-24-6097 and A310-24-2100 specify to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but paragraph
(k)of this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method approved by the FAA or the EASA (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by either the FAA or the EASA would be acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(k)of this proposed AD. Clarification of Inspection Terminology The “detailed visual inspection” specified in Service Bulletins A300-24-6097 and A310-24-2100 is referred to as a “detailed inspection” in this proposed AD. Note 1 in this proposed AD identifies a detailed inspection. Explanation of Changes Made to Requirements of Existing AD We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Paragraph
(e)of the existing AD specifies repairing certain discrepancies using a method approved by either the FAA or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated agent). The EASA has assumed responsibility for the airplane models that would be subject to this AD. Therefore, we have revised corresponding paragraph
(i)in this proposed AD to specify the repair of those discrepancies before the effective date of the new AD using a method approved by the FAA, the DGAC (or its delegated agent), or the EASA (or its delegated agent). After the effective date, paragraph
(i)of this proposed AD specifies the repair using a method approved by the FAA or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost of parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost One-time inspection (from AD 2004-09-01) 2 $80 $0 $160 100 $16,000. Repetitive inspections and harness protection (new proposed requirement) 4 80 0 $320, per inspection cycle 100 $32,000, per inspection cycle. New optional modification 8 80 2,460 $3,100 Up to 100 Up to $310,000. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13590 (69 FR 23090, April 28, 2004) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27012; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-188-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-09-01. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-605R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, A310-204, A310-304, and A310-308 airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines without full-authority digital electronic control (FADEC); excluding airplanes on which Airbus Modification 13184 was done in production. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of structural damage on the forward pyramid arm of an engine pylon due to chafing of the integrated drive generator
(IDG)electrical harness against the structure of the pyramid arm. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing in the engine pylon, which could result in loss of the relevant alternating current
(AC)bus bar, reduced structural integrity of the engine pylon, and possible loss of control 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 Certain Requirements of AD 2004-09-01 All Operators Telex Reference
(f)The term “All Operators Telex,” or “AOT,” as used in paragraphs (g), (h), and
(j)of this AD, means the following AOTs, as applicable:
(1)For Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-605R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus AOT A300-54A6037, dated February 19, 2004; and
(2)For Model A310-204, A310-304, and -308 airplanes: Airbus AOT A310-54A2038, dated February 19, 2004. Inspection
(g)At the applicable time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a one-time detailed inspection for discrepancies of the IDG harness, harness bracket, retaining fasteners, and pyramid arm, in accordance with the applicable AOT.
(1)For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 07591 has not been incorporated as of May 13, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-09-01): Within 10 days after May 13, 2004.
(2)For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 07591 has been incorporated as of May 13, 2004: Within 600 flight hours after May 13, 2004. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” Related Investigative and Corrective Actions for Damaged Electrical Harness
(h)If any discrepancy in the IDG electrical harness, fretting at the convoluted conduits, or contact between the IDG electrical harness and the pyramid arms is found during the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Before further flight, do the applicable related investigative actions and corrective actions in accordance with the applicable AOT. Corrective Action for Damaged Electrical Harness Bracket, Retaining Fasteners, or Pyramid Arm
(i)If any discrepancy in the electrical harness bracket, retaining fasteners, or pyramid arm is found during the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)(or its delegated agent). After the effective date of this AD, repair in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or the EASA. No Reporting Requirement for Paragraph
(g)of This AD
(j)Although the referenced AOTs describe procedures for submitting certain information to the manufacturer, no report is required for the inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD. New Requirements of This AD Repetitive Inspections
(k)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months: Do a detailed inspection for damage of the IDG harness and the pylon pyramid arms, and protect the harness. Do the actions in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6097, dated March 3, 2006 (for Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-605R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes); or A310-24-2100, dated March 3, 2006 (for Model A310-204, A310-304, and A310-308 airplanes). The initial inspection terminates the requirements of paragraph
(g)of this AD. If any discrepancy is found: Before further flight, repair in accordance with the applicable service bulletin; except, where the service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for repair instructions, this AD requires repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Report
(l)At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each inspection required by paragraph
(k)of this AD. Send the report to Airbus Customer Services Directorate, Department AI/SE-E43, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac, Cedex, France. The report must include the information specified in Appendix 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-24-6097 or A310-24-2100, both dated March 3, 2006, as applicable. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)For each inspection done after the effective date of this AD: Send the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2)If an inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Send the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Optional Terminating Action
(m)Replacement of the bracket feeder on the pylons terminates the requirements of this AD if the bracket feeder is replaced in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-54-6038, dated May 12, 2006 (for Model A300 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-605R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes); or A310-54-2039, dated May 12, 2006 (for Model A310-204, A310-304, and A310-308 airplanes); as applicable. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (n)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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
(o)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0155, dated June 1, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 26, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1207 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27015; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-169-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318-111 and A318-112 Airplanes and Model A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede two existing airworthiness directives (ADs). One AD applies to all Airbus Model A319 and A320 airplanes and currently requires repetitive ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings, and corrective actions if necessary. The other AD applies to all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes and currently requires a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). This proposed AD would require new revisions to the ALS of the ICA to incorporate service life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain structures; and accomplishment of the repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings in accordance with the revised ALS of the ICA. This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD results from issuance of new and more restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based on fatigue testing and in-service findings. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements and to prevent failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27015; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-169-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On January 29, 2004, we issued AD 2004-03-06, amendment 39-13450 (69 FR 5909, February 9, 2004), for all Airbus Model A319 and A320 airplanes. That AD requires repetitive ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks on the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing/fuselage. On January 18, 2005, we issued AD 2005-02-09, amendment 39-13954 (70 FR 3871, January 27, 2005), for all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That AD requires a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA)to incorporate new and more restrictive service life limits for certain items, and new and more restrictive inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain structures. That AD resulted from a revision to the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Planning Document
(MPD)and Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALIs)document, which specify new or more restrictive compliance times for structural inspection and replacement actions. We issued that AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of these airplanes. Accomplishing certain actions in AD 2005-02-09 terminates the repetitive inspections of AD 2004-03-06 for Model A319 and A320 airplanes. Actions Since Existing ADs Were Issued Since we issued AD 2004-03-06 and AD 2005-02-09, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A318-111 and A318-112 airplanes and Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has issued new and more restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based upon fatigue testing and in-service findings. Fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements and failure of certain life limited parts, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The EASA also advises that Airbus has moved the service life limits given in sub-Section 9-1-2, “Life Limited Parts,” and sub-Section 9-1-3, “Demonstrated Fatigue Life Parts,” of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 MPD into a new document titled, Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items. Also, Airbus has moved the structural significant items
(SSIs)of sub-Section 9-2, “Airworthiness Limitation Items,” of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 MPD into a new document titled, Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items, which refers to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated February 28, 2006. Sub-part 1-2, “Life Limits,” and Sub-part 1-3, “Demonstrated Fatigue Lives,” of the ALS Part 1 document specify new and more restrictive service life limits for certain items. Airbus has also issued A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated February 28, 2006. The ALS Part 2 document refers to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated December 2005 (approved by the EASA on February 7, 2006), which specifies new and more restrictive inspections for SSIs. Accomplishment of the actions specified in these documents is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0162, dated June 8, 2006; and airworthiness directive 2006-0165, dated June 13, 2006; to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. 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 AD action is necessary for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2004-03-06. This proposed AD would also supersede AD 2005-02-09 and would retain the requirements of existing AD 2005-02-09. This proposed AD would also require revising the ALS of the ICA to incorporate service life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in certain structures; and accomplishment of the repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the wing/fuselage joint cruciform fittings in accordance with the revised ALS of the ICA. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2005-02-09. Since AD 2005-02-09 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2005-02-09 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph
(a)Paragraph (f). Paragraph
(b)Paragraph (g). Explanation of Change Made to Requirements of Existing AD Paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of AD 2005-02-09 specify revising the ALS of the ICA using a method approved by either the FAA or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated agent). The EASA has assumed responsibility for the airplane models that would be subject to this AD. Therefore, we have revised paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this NPRM to specify revising the ALS of the ICA using a method approved by the FAA, the DGAC (or its delegated agent), or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Clarification of Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC)Paragraph We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost ALS Revision (required by AD 2005-02-09) 1 $80 720 $57,600 ALS Revision (new proposed action) 1 80 720 57,600 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13450 (69 FR 5909, February 9, 2004) and amendment 39-13954 (70 FR 3871, January 27, 2005) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27015; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-169-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2004-03-06 and AD 2005-02-09. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-111, A318-112, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new 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
(l)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)25.1529-1. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from issuance of new and more restrictive service life limits and structural inspections based on fatigue testing and in-service findings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements and to prevent failure of certain life limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity 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 2005-02-09 Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section
(f)For all Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Within 6 months after March 3, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-02-09), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile
(DGAC)(or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)(or its delegated agent). One approved method of compliance is incorporating Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), sub-Section 9-1-2, “Life Limited Parts,” and sub-Section 9-1-3, “Demonstrated Fatigue Life Parts,” both Revision 06, both dated June 13, 2003. Note 2: Airbus Service Information Letter 32-098, dated December 22, 2003, may be used as a source of service information for managing life limited and demonstrated fatigue life parts that were not previously tracked.
(g)For all Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes; except Model A319 airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342 were incorporated during production: Within 6 months after March 3, 2005, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116; or the DGAC (or its delegated agent); or the EASA (or its delegated agent). One approved method of compliance is incorporating both Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 MPD, sub-Section 9-2, “Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Revision 06, dated June 13, 2003; and Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALIs), Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 6, dated May 15, 2003 (approved by the DGAC on July 15, 2003). New Requirements of This AD Revise ALS To Incorporate Safe Life ALIs
(h)For all airplanes: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Sub-part 1-2, “Life Limits,” and Sub-part 1-3, “Demonstrated Fatigue Lives,” of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items, dated February 28, 2006 (hereafter referred to as “ALS Part 1”). Accomplish the actions in ALS Part 1 at the times specified in ALS Part 1, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD. For Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, accomplishing the revision in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Revise ALS To Incorporate Damage-Tolerant ALIs
(i)For all airplanes, except Model A319 airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342 have been incorporated in production: Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Items, Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0252/96, Issue 7, dated December 2005 (approved by the EASA on February 7, 2006) (hereafter referred to as “Issue 7 of the ALI”). Accomplish the actions in Issue 7 of the ALI at the times specified in Issue 7 of the ALI, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD. For Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, accomplishing the revision in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph
(g)of this AD. Grace Period for New or More Restrictive Actions
(j)For any new of more restrictive life limit introduced with ALS Part 1, replace the part at the time specified in ALS Part 1 or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. For any new or more restrictive inspection introduced with Issue 7 of the ALI, do the inspection at the time specified in Issue 7 of the ALI or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later. No Alternative Life Limits, Inspections, or Inspection Intervals
(k)After the actions specified in paragraphs
(h)and
(i)of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative life limits, inspections, or inspection intervals may be used, except as provided by paragraphs
(j)and
(l)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(m)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0162, dated June 8, 2006; and EASA airworthiness direction 2006-0165, dated June 13, 2006; also address the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1205 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27013; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-236-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue damage with a crack propagation through the fastener line of the wing shroud box bottom panel, resulting in panel detachment and potential injuries to persons on the ground. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27013; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-236-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the aviation authority for the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0107, dated May 12, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that an A330 operator has reported a shroud box bottom panel missing during routine inspection. The same panel detached from an A330 aircraft during take-off, causing damages to the surrounding structure and to the Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer
(THS)tip fairing. Preliminary inspection has shown that the blind rivets used to attach the panel worked loose causing the panel to suffer fatigue damage with a crack propagation through the fastener line resulting in panel detachment. To avoid potential injuries to persons on ground, the EASA airworthiness directive mandates a one time detailed visual inspection of the shroud box bottom panel for cracks in the panel and for missing and loose fasteners, and repair if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A330-57A3092 and A340-57A4101, both dated February 3, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 27 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,320, or $160 per product. 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27013; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-236-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by February 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes, all certified models, all serial numbers, certificated in any category, on which Airbus modification 42061 or 46077 or 53604 has been embodied in production and delivered before December 31, 2005. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states that an A330 operator has reported a shroud box bottom panel missing during routine inspection. The same panel detached from an A330 aircraft during take-off, causing damages to the surrounding structure and to the Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer
(THS)tip fairing. Preliminary inspection has shown that the blind rivets used to attach the panel worked loose causing the panel to suffer fatigue damage with a crack propagation through the fastener line resulting in panel detachment. To avoid potential injuries to persons on ground, the MCAI requires a one time detailed visual inspection of the shroud box bottom panel for cracks in the panel and for missing and loose fasteners, and applicable repairs. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions. Within the threshold specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD and in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3792, dated February 3, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57A4101, dated February 3, 2006; as applicable: Perform a one time detailed inspection of the shroud box bottom panel for cracks, fasteners missing or loose, damage, and marks; and apply all applicable corrective actions. Do applicable corrective actions before further flight. The inspections results, whatever they are, must be reported to Airbus.
(1)For Model A330 airplanes: Whichever occurs later between paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Prior to the accumulation of 1,200 flight cycles or 2,400 flight hours from the first flight of the aircraft, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 6 months or 1,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first, following the effective date of this AD.
(2)For Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes: Whichever occurs later between paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Prior to the accumulation of 1,200 flight cycles or 4,800 flight hours from the first flight of the aircraft, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 6 months or 2,400 flight hours, whichever occurs first, following the effective date of this AD. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, Attn: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0107, dated May 12, 2006, and Airbus Service Bulletins A330-57A3092 and A340-57A4101, both dated February 3, 2006, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1210 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Parts 135 and 298 [Docket OST-2007-27057] RIN 2105-AD66 Consumer Information Regarding On-Demand Air Taxi Operations AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (Department) is seeking input from interested parties on the recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board (Safety Board or NTSB) that customers of on-demand air taxi services be advised, at the time they contract for a flight, of:
(1)The name of the company with operational control of the flight;
(2)any “doing business as” names contained in such company's Operations Specifications;
(3)the name of the aircraft owner; and
(4)the name of any broker involved in arranging the flight. The NTSB has also recommended that customers be updated thereafter in the event such information changes. The Department will evaluate the comments to determine what, if any, changes to its economic rules applicable to on-demand air taxi operators should be made. DATES: Comments should be received by March 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT DMS Docket Number) by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the Public Participation heading. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to 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. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Dols, Supervisory Trial Attorney, or Dayton Lehman, Jr., Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation Enforcement Proceedings (C-70), 400 7th Street, SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9342. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 28, 2004, a Canadair, Ltd., CL-600-2A12, operated by Air Castle Corporation doing business as Global Aviation Glo-Air 73, crashed during takeoff at Montrose Regional Airport, Montrose, Colorado. In the course of its accident investigation, the Safety Board noted non-causal factors that the Safety Board felt could nevertheless play a role in the safety choices that customers make when contracting for on-demand air taxi transportation with air charter companies. Among the factors identified by the NTSB was a lack of transparency such that a customer or passenger may not know the identities of those businesses providing them with on-demand air transportation services, hindering those persons' abilities to make decisions based on safety considerations. In order to remedy this concern, the Safety Board on August 4, 2006, recommended that the Department adopt rules applicable to on-demand air taxi flights that would require that certain information be provided to customers and passengers at the time a flight is contracted, and any time thereafter that a change in such information might occur. The Safety Board recommended the following information be disclosed to customers and passengers at the time an air taxi charter contract is arranged and anytime thereafter that such information changes:
(1)The name of the company in operational control of the aircraft during flight;
(2)any other “doing business as” names contained in the Operations Specifications of the carrier in operational control during the flight;
(3)the name of the aircraft owner; and
(4)the names of all brokers involved in arranging the flight. A copy of Safety Board Recommendation A-06-43 is available online at *http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2006/A06_43.pdf* . Authority to operate on-demand air taxi service is prescribed by both the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA)safety regulations, set forth at 14 CFR Part 135, and the economic requirements of the Office of the Secretary, set forth at 14 CFR Part 298. The Department has always believed that adequate information is essential in order that consumers be afforded the opportunity to make informed decisions about their flight choices. For example, we have long had in effect a regulation covering scheduled carriers, which provide air service for the vast majority of passengers in the U.S,. that requires that notice be provided the public of the name of the airline operating a code share or long-term wet lease operation. (See 14 CFR Part 257) That required notice is similar to that which the Safety Board recommends be required of on-demand air taxi operations. The Department also has longstanding rules applicable to air charter brokers and other ticket agents that prohibit them from, among other things:
(1)Misleading the public into believing they are airlines;
(2)misleading the public about the qualifications of pilots or the safety record or certification of air carriers, aircraft, or crew; and
(3)misleading the public about the quality or kind of service, including the size or type of aircraft and route to be flown. (See 14 CFR 399.80) In addition, it would be a deceptive practice prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 41712 for an air taxi to misidentify to a customer the carrier actually operating a flight. Where warranted, we have acted through our Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) to enforce these requirements. For example, the Enforcement Office's investigation following the February 2, 2005, crash of Canadiar CL-600-N370V at Teterboro, New Jersey, resulted in enforcement action against all three entities involved—the unlicensed operator of the aircraft, the air carrier on whose operations specifications the crashed aircraft was listed, and the air charter broker who arranged the flight using the unlicensed aircraft operator—for violations of the Department's economic regulations described above. See, Platinum Jet Management, LLC, Michael F. Brassington, Andre Budhan, and Paul Brassington, Consent Order 2006-6-14, issued June 12, 2006, Docket OST-2006-23528 (finding, *inter alia,* that Platinum and the named individuals engaged in air transportation without economic authority from the Department in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41301 and 41712); Darby Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Alphajet International, Consent Order 2005-12-1, issued December 1, 2005, Docket OST-2005-20077 (finding that Darby, a properly licensed on-demand air taxi, engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 by facilitating the unlawful air taxi operations of Platinum Jet Management); and BlueStarJets, LLC, Consent Order 2005-10-24, issued October 24, 2005, Docket OST-2005-20077 (finding that BlueStarJets, an air charter broker, violated 14 CFR Part 399 and 49 U.S.C. 41101 and engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 by misrepresenting itself as an air carrier and misrepresenting the safety records and certification of carriers whose services it was marketing). The Department is aware of the increasing role in the U.S. air transportation system being played by air carriers that operate on-demand air taxi service under Part 298 of the Department's economic regulations, and Part 135 of the FAA's safety regulations, as well as by air charter brokers who bring together air taxis and customers in that system. Therefore, we have not limited our work in this area to after-the-fact enforcement actions; rather, we have been active in air charter industry outreach efforts. The Department's Enforcement Office has reemphasized our existing requirements applicable to the air charter industry through issuance of informal guidance and regular participation in conferences and meetings with the major associations representing all facets of the air charter industry, at which the need to provide complete and accurate notice of the carrier that is operating the flight has been urged on the participants. The Enforcement Office also maintains an open line of communication with carriers, individuals, and organizations throughout the year to discuss matters of concern to the on-demand air charter industry. Although we believe the Department's consumer protection efforts described above have gone a long way toward ensuring the protection of the public who use on-demand air taxi services, the notice recommended by the Safety Board is not specifically required by current Department regulations. The Department agrees with the Safety Board that accurate information is essential if airline consumers are to make informed choices, including those related to safety. We are continually striving to fulfill our duty to maintain the proper balance between consumer protections and our charge to permit market forces to govern the air transportation industry to the maximum extent possible. Toward this end, there are, of course, many factors to take into account in determining whether or not to implement the NTSB's recommendations. Accordingly, the Department is seeking input from interested parties on the recommendations made by the NTSB. We ask that, in considering their comments on the Safety Board's recommendations, commenters specifically consider and comment on the following questions: 1. How might customers and passengers benefit from the information covered by the NTSB recommendation in making their air taxi service purchase decisions? 2. Should any notice requirement, if adopted, also apply to air charter brokers and other ticket agents who arrange for air transportation for customers using the services of on-demand air taxis? 3. To what extent is each of the notices recommended by the Safety Board already provided in the normal course of business to persons who travel using an on-demand air taxi? If such notice is not currently routinely provided, what, if any, practical difficulties would the on-demand air taxi industry likely face in providing the notice? 4. What costs, if any, would the recommended changes impose on the industry? Would there be any paperwork burdens? Would there be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ? 5. How might the disclosure of the names of the owners of the aircraft involved in the arranged flights be useful to customers and passengers? What, if any, practical or privacy concerns would be raised by such a requirement? 6. At what point in time must any notice, if required, first be provided to be effective, e.g., in printed and website advertisements, to potential customers when they are seeking information, anytime prior to entering into a contract, upon signing the contract, or anytime prior to boarding the aircraft? 7. What form should any notice requirement, if adopted, take? That is, is verbal notice sufficient or must the notice be in writing? 8. What are the practical problems in requiring notice to individual passengers of an on-demand air taxi? Would any notice requirement be sufficient if provided to the person contracting for the flight, e.g., the customer's broker/agent or a corporation's travel department or an executive's assistant who arranged the flight? Andrew B. Steinberg, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-1232 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 35, 131, 154, 157, 250, 281, 284, 300, 341, 342, 344, 346, 347, 348, 375 and 385 [Docket No. RM01-5-000] Notice of Meeting With North American Energy Standards Board January 18, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; notice of conference. SUMMARY: A conference will be held with the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to discuss NAESB's assistance in the process of developing standards for electronic tariff and rate schedules filings in connection with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR)that proposed to initiate electronic tariff filings. *Electronic Tariff Filings,* 69 FR 43929 (July 23, 2004). DATES: February 1, 2007, 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Pierce, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-8525, *Keith.Pierce@ferc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Tariff Filings Notice of Meeting With North American Energy Standards Board Take notice that on February 1, 2007, a conference will be held with the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to discuss NAESB's assistance in the process of developing standards for electronic tariff and rate schedules filings in connection with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR)that proposed to initiate electronic tariff filings. *Electronic Tariff Filings* , 69 FR 43929 (July 23, 2004) FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations ¶ 32,575 (July 8, 2004). This process will examine the protocols, standards, and data formats needed to provide metadata to enable the Commission to develop a database to track such filings. The technical conference will be held from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m.
(EDT)at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in the Commission Meeting Room. Information related to this conference is available on NAESB's Web site ( *http://www.naesb.org/etariff.asp* ). Background material can be found on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov;* click on eTariff under the Documents and Filings Heading). Notices of any subsequent NAESB meetings will be posted on the NAESB Web site *http://www.naesb.org/etariff.asp.* The conference is open to the public to attend, and pre-registration is not required. Conferences held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations. For more information about this conference, please contact Keith Pierce, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability at
(202)502-8525 or *Keith.Pierce@ferc.gov.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1158 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division 29 CFR Part 825 Request for Information on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor. ACTION: Request for Information from the Public; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: This notice extends the period for comments to be submitted on the request for information (“RFI”) published on December 1, 2006 (71 FR 69504) related to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (the “FMLA” or the “Act”). That request for information invites the public to provide information to the Department of Labor (“Department”) to assist in its consideration and review of the Department's administration of the Act and the implementing regulations. The Department has received inquiries regarding the possibility of extending the comment period, particularly since the RFI was published in December and part of the comment period fell over the holidays. The comment period, which was to expire on February 2, 2007, is hereby extended 14 days to February 16, 2007 at 5 p.m. (EST). DATES: Public comments should be received by no later than 5 p.m. EST, February 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Address all written submissions to Richard M. Brennan, Senior Regulatory Officer, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Because we continue to experience delays in receiving mail in the Washington, DC area, individuals are encouraged to submit any information by mail early, or to transmit them electronically through the link to *www.regulations.gov.* You may also submit comments of 20 pages or less by Fax machine to
(202)693-1432, which is not a toll-free number, or by e-mail to: *whdcomments@dol.gov.* Duplicate comments submitted by more than one method are not necessary as they will be counted as one comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard M. Brennan, Senior Regulatory Officer, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202)693-0066 (this is not a toll free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the **Federal Register** of December 1, 2006 (71 FR 69504), the Department published a request for information from the public to assist the Department in its consideration and review of the administration of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the implementing regulations. Interested persons were invited to submit comments on or before February 2, 2007. The Department has received inquiries regarding the possibility of extending the comment period, particularly since the RFI was published in December and part of the comment period fell over the holidays. The comment period, which was to expire on February 2, 2007, is hereby extended 14 days to February 16, 2007 at 5 p.m. (EST). The complete request for information remains available on the Department's Web site at *http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmlacomments.htm.* Anyone who is unable to access this information on the Internet can obtain a copy by contacting Richard M. Brennan, Senior Regulatory Officer, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, or
(202)693-0066 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing impairments may call 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of January, 2007. Victoria A. Lipnic, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards. Paul DeCamp, Administrator, Wage and Hour Division. [FR Doc. 07-353 Filed 1-25-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
U.S. Code
- HUBZone program§ 657a
- Definitions§ 601
- Definitions§ 632
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Purposes§ 3501
- Unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition§ 41712
- Requirement for a permit§ 41301
- Requirement for a certificate§ 41101
CFR
- How does SBA calculate number of employees?§ 121.106
- What definitions are important in the HUBZone program?§ 126.103
- Issue of type certificate: import products.§ 21.29
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Application.§ 21.303
- General.§ 91.403
- Unfair and deceptive practices of ticket agents.§ 399.80
13 references not yet in our index
- 13 CFR 126
- Pub. L. 105-135
- 13 CFR 121
- 305 F. Supp. 2d 614
- 5 USC 601-602
- 111 Stat. 2592
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 14 CFR 135
- 14 CFR 298
- 14 CFR 257
- 14 CFR 399
- 29 CFR 825
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Proposed rule
F. Supp.305 F. Supp. 2d 614
Cite13 CFR 126
Pub. L.Pub. L. 105-135
Cites 32 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources