Unknown. Final rule

33,167 words·~151 min read·/register/2007/02/16/07-670

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-02-16.xml --- 72 32 Friday, February 16, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Kiwifruit grown in California, 7547-7549 E7-2732 Onions grown in Idaho and Oregon, 7549-7551 E7-2724 NOTICES Grade standards: Greenhouse tomatoes, 7591-7592 E7-2725 Tomatoes on the vine, 7593-7594 E7-2731 Winter pears, 7594 E7-2728 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Foreign Agricultural Service See Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7591 E7-2783 Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 07-730 7619-7620 07-731 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7594-7598 E7-2786 E7-2787 E7-2788 E7-2789 Army Army Department See Engineers Corps NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:

Inland Waterways Users Board, 7620-7621 07-718 Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Medical image processing methodology for detention and discrimination of objects in tissue, 7621 07-720 Method of inducing and sealing of cracks in vessels, 7621 07-721 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Blind Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are See Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings:

Elimination of Tuberculosis Advisory Council, 7659 E7-2766 National Center for Infectious Diseases— Scientific Counselors Board, 7659-7660 E7-2753 Civil Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; State advisory committees: Georgia, 7602 E7-2775 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations: Illinois, 7581-7582 E7-2795 E7-2796 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council, 7665 E7-2824 Commerce Commerce Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7602 E7-2743 Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement list; additions and deletions, 7601-7602 E7-2784 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Army Department See Engineers Corps See Navy Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Contractor code of ethics and business conduct, 7588-7590 07-698 NOTICES Arms sales notification; transmittal letter, etc., 7611-7617 07-728 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Ballistic Missile Defense System; development, testing, deployment, and decommissioning plans, 7617-7618 E7-2433 Meetings: Scientific Advisory Board, 7618 07-729 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7625-7629 E7-2717 E7-2718 E7-2779 E7-2781 E7-2782 Elementary and secondary education:

Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program; final priority, 7629-7630 E7-2822 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Elementary and secondary education— Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program, 7630-7634 E7-2821 Indian education programs— Professional Development Program, 7634-7639 E7-2749 Safe and drug free schools programs— Cooperative Civic Education and Economic Exchange Program, 7639-7642 E7-2748 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

President's High Growth Job Training Initiative— Long-term care sector of health care industry, 7680-7692 E7-2741 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Advisory Board, 7643-7644 E7-2763 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board— Nevada Test Site, 7643 E7-2760 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Amite River and tributaries, LA; restoration, 7621-7622 07-719 Upper Trinity River, Fort Worth, TX;

Central City Project, 7622-7623 07-724 EPA Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Agency comment availability, 7651-7652 E7-2734 Agency weekly receipts, 7652-7653 E7-2733 Meetings: Full Tribal Pesticide Program Council, 7653-7654 E7-2668 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Clean Air Interstate Rule Federal Implementation Plan Trading Programs; EGU NOx annual and NOx ozone season allocations; objection period extended, 7654 E7-2806 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:

Boeing, 7563-7566 E7-2511 7572-7576 E7-2644 EADS SOCATA, 7559-7561 E7-2507 7576-7578 07-670 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), 7561-7563 E7-2510 Gippsland Aeronautics Pty. Ltd., 7578-7580 E7-2516 Learjet, 7568-7572 E7-2640 McDonnell Douglas, 7566-7568 E7-2639 Raytheon; correction, 7581 E7-2754 Short Brothers & Harland Ltd., 7555-7558 E7-2505 Sicma Aero Seat, 7554-7555 E7-2506 FCC Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7655-7656 E7-2773 Federal Election Federal Election Commission RULES Compliance procedures:

Probable cause hearings; pilot program, 7551-7554 E7-2723 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005; implementation: Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; repeal Technical conference, 7583 E7-2707 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Gulf South Pipeline Co., LP, 7646-7647 E7-2695 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Dominion Transmission, Inc., 7647-7648 E7-2698 Hydroelectric applications, 7648-7650 E7-2700 E7-2702 Meetings:

California Independent System Operator Corp. Post-technical conference comments period rescinded, 7650 E7-2699 Competition in wholesale power markets; technical conference, 7650-7651 E7-2706 Duke Power Co. LLC, 7651 E7-2701 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America; technical conference, 7651 E7-2703 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 7644 E7-2697 CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Co., 7644 E7-2693 El Paso Natural Gas Co., 7644-7645 E7-2704 Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C., 7645 E7-2705 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 7645 E7-2696 Windy Hill Gas Storage, LLC, 7645-7646 E7-2694 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies:

Change in bank control, 7656 E7-2770 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, E7-2726 E7-2727 7656-7657 E7-2729 E7-2730 E7-2771 Meetings: Consumer Advisory Council, 7657-7658 E7-2772 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species permit applications, 7666-7670 E7-2746 E7-2747 E7-2750 E7-2751 E7-2752 07-716 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-2708 7660-7664 E7-2710 E7-2716 E7-2794 Human drugs:

Patent extension; regulatory review period determinations— TYGACIL, 7664-7665 E7-2805 Foreign Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association et al., 7598 E7-2776 Michigan natural honey producers, 7598-7599 E7-2778 National Grape Cooperative Association, 7599 E7-2777 Foreign Foreign Claims Settlement Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 7676 07-747 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:

Mt. Hood National Forest, OR; Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Agreement, 7599-7600 07-717 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Boise National Forest, ID, 7600-7601 07-602 GSA General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Contractor code of ethics and business conduct, 7588-7590 07-698 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: San Luis, AZ; new commercial port of entry construction, 7658 E7-2720 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7658-7659 E7-2769 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:

Homeless assistance; excess and surplus Federal properties, 7714-7736 E7-2490 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: National origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons; prohibition; policy guidance to Federal financial assistance recipients Effective date change and final guidance, 7666 E7-2813 Meeting rescheduled, 7665-7666 E7-2811 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service International International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7602-7603 E7-2744 Antidumping:

Carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from— Canada, 7603 E7-2819 Chlorinated isocyanurates from— Spain, 7603-7604 E7-2820 Hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from— Netherlands, 7604-7606 E7-2816 Lemon juice from— Argentina and Mexico, 7606 E7-2815 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: Polyester staple fiber from— China, 7676 E7-2818 Justice Justice Department See Foreign Claims Settlement Commission See Justice Programs Office Justice Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7676-7678 E7-2798 E7-2799 E7-2800 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7678-7679 E7-2745 International Labor Affairs Bureau:

Strengthening labor compliance in agricultural sector in Central America and Dominican Republic, 7679-7680 E7-2740 Strengthening labor systems in Central America; establishing worker rights centers, 7679 E7-2739 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Pinedale, WY; resource management plan, 7670-7672 E7-2678 Trukhaven Geothermal Leasing Area, CA, 7672-7673 E7-2682 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Nevada, 7673 E7-2814 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):

Contractor code of ethics and business conduct, 7588-7590 07-698 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 7692-7693 E7-2780 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: Baby Trend, Inc., 7708-7709 E7-2809 Nissan North America, Inc, 7709 E7-2810 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 7606 E7-2736 New England Fishery Management Council, 7606-7607 E7-2735 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7607-7608 E7-2742 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 7608-7610 E7-2738 Southeastern data, assessment, and review;

Caribbean queen conch, yellowfin grouper, and mutton, 7610-7611 E7-2737 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Boundary establishment, descriptions, etc.: Golden Gate National Recreation Area, CA, 7674 E7-2758 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Niobrara National Scenic River, NB; general management plan, 7674 E7-2757 Meetings: Boston Harbor Islands Advisory Council, 7674-7675 E7-2756 Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission, 7675 E7-2759 National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 7675-7676 E7-2713 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7624 07-732 Base realignment and closure:

Surplus Federal property— Naval Air Station, Brunswick, ME, 7624-7625 E7-2762 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E7-2790 7693-7694 E7-2791 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: License renewal applications; environmental reports acceptance review, 7694-7695 E7-2785 Patent Patent and Trademark Office PROPOSED RULES Patent cases: Patent Cooperation Treaty; application procedures, 7583-7587 E7-2761 Postal Postal Service PROPOSED RULES Domestic Mail Manual:

Adult fowl; revised mailing standards, 7587-7588 E7-2817 NOTICES Domestic Mail Manual: Domestic mailing services; new standards, 7695 E7-2825 Railroad Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7695-7696 E7-2774 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 7696-7697 E7-2722 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 7697-7699 E7-2765 07-722 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 7699-7701 E7-2793 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 7701 E7-2721 Options Clearing Corp., 7701-7706 E7-2792 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 7706-7708 E7-2764 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Florida, 7708 E7-2755 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Rail carriers: Control exemption— Koch Industries, Inc., 7709-7710 E7-2439 Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, control, etc.:

Moscow, Camden & San Augustine Railroad, 7711 E7-2434 Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 7710 E7-2569 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* CMS Bancorp, Inc., 7711 07-737 ESSA Bancorp, Inc., 7711 07-738 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department See Thrift Supervision Office Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Housing and Urban Development Department, 7714-7736 E7-2490 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 32 Friday, February 16, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 920 [Docket No. FV06-920-1 FIR] Kiwifruit Grown in California; Relaxation of Container Marking Requirements AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule that relaxed the container marking requirements for kiwifruit covered under the California kiwifruit marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of kiwifruit grown in California and is administered locally by the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee (Committee). Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected, met applicable grade and size requirements, and was subsequently placed into new containers, had to be positive lot identified, which required reinspection. This rule continues in effect the action that established procedures for handlers to ship such kiwifruit without positive lot identification (PLI). This rule is intended to reduce handler inspection costs and facilitate the marketing of kiwifruit. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shereen Marino, Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, telephone:

(559)487-5901, Fax:

(559)487-5906, or E-mail: *Shereen.Marino@usda.gov,* or *Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:

(202)720-2491, Fax:

(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920 as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the container marking requirements for kiwifruit covered under the order. Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected, met applicable grade and size requirements, and was subsequently placed into new containers, had to be positive lot identified, which required reinspection. This rule continues to establish procedures for handlers to ship such kiwifruit without PLI. This rule is intended to reduce handler inspection costs and facilitate the marketing of kiwifruit. The Committee unanimously recommended this change at its April 6, 2006, meeting. Section 920.52(a) of the order provides authority for grade, size, pack, container, and container marking requirements for shipments of fresh kiwifruit. Section 920.55 of the order requires inspection and certification of kiwifruit prior to shipment by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service (FSIS). Section 920.302 of the order's regulations specifies applicable grade, size, pack, and container requirements and § 920.303 specifies applicable container marking requirements. Paragraph

(d)of § 920.303 requires that containers of kiwifruit be positive lot identified prior to shipment. PLI helps to ensure that a specific load or lot of kiwifruit can be linked to an inspection certificate and provides verification that the fruit was inspected. No less than 75 percent of the containers of kiwifruit on a pallet must be marked with a lot stamp number corresponding to the lot inspection conducted by the FSIS. This lot stamp number is a PLI number that can be matched to an inspection certificate. Individual consumer packages within a master container, and containers being directly loaded into a vehicle for export under FSIS supervision are exempt from PLI. Individual consumer packages placed directly on a pallet, and plastic containers of kiwifruit must be positive lot identified. Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected and certified, and was subsequently placed into new containers, had to be positive lot identified. When such kiwifruit is placed into new containers, the PLI mark on the container is lost and thus the lot is not easily identified. The new containers must be reinspected and marked with a new PLI number. Reinspection costs for such kiwifruit account for roughly 20 percent of annual inspection costs for handlers. In an effort to reduce handler costs, the Committee recommended establishing procedures for handlers to ship previously inspected kiwifruit placed in new containers without PLI. Handlers now have the option of having such kiwifruit reinspected and marked with a PLI number or requesting a verification number under a new verification process. Such kiwifruit must be of the same grade and size as originally inspected. The handler must contact the FSIS to obtain a verification number prior to shipment, and plainly mark one end of each container with the letter “R” and the verification number. The letter “R” and the verification number must not be less than one-half inch in height. The handler must submit a Kiwifruit Verification Form to the FSIS within 3 business days of such request, and provide the following information from the original inspection:

(i)The positive lot identification numbers;

(ii)the identity of the handler;

(iii)the inspection certificate numbers;

(iv)the grade and size of the kiwifruit;

(v)the number and type of containers; and

(v)the handler's brand; and the following information on the kiwifruit placed into new containers:

(i)The number and type of containers; and

(ii)the applicable brand. The verification number is linked to the PLI number, thus providing a method to trace the fruit back to the original inspection certificate. The FSIS maintains the Kiwifruit Verification Forms. The Committee will make use of completed forms to audit handlers as needed to ensure compliance, pursuant to authority provided in § 920.61. Accordingly, a new paragraph

(f)was added to § 920.303 that established the verification procedures described above. Additionally, a new sentence was added to the beginning of paragraph

(d)in that section to clarify that except as provided in the new paragraph (f), containers of kiwifruit must be positive lot identified prior to shipment in accordance with specified requirements. Paragraph

(d)was modified further for clarification purposes to change the term “lot stamp number” to “positive lot identified,” and to change the term “plastic container” to “reusable plastic container.” Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. There are approximately 37 handlers of kiwifruit subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 220 growers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000. None of the 37 handlers subject to regulation have annual kiwifruit sales of $6,500,000. In addition, six growers subject to regulation have annual sales exceeding $750,000. Therefore, all of the kiwifruit handlers and a majority of the growers may be classified as small entities. This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the container marking requirements specified in § 920.303. Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected, met applicable grade and size requirements, and was subsequently placed into new containers had to be positive lot identified, which required reinspection. This rule continues to establish procedures for handlers to ship such kiwifruit without PLI. The verification procedures are specified in § 920.303(f). Handlers must obtain a verification number from the FSIS, mark their new containers with such number and the letter “R,” and submit a Kiwifruit Verification Form to the FSIS. The verification number can be linked to the original PLI number, thereby providing a method to trace the fruit back to the original inspection certificate. This action is intended to reduce handler inspection costs and facilitate the marketing of kiwifruit. This rule also continues in effect minor modifications to paragraph

(d)of § 920.303 for clarification purposes. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 902.52(a)(3) and 920.55 of the order. The impact of this change on handlers was discussed by the Committee. Reinspection costs due to PLI requirements account for roughly 20 percent of annual inspection costs for the industry. Additionally, an average of 20 percent of the crop is placed into new containers annually. The following table shows inspection costs for in-line inspection, lot inspection, and kiwifruit placed into new containers for 2001 to 2005. Year In-Line Lot New containers Total cost 2001-02 $107,702 $15,254 $38,411 $161,367 2002-03 96,376 24,866 35,521 156,763 2003-04 111,228 12,064 29,197 152,489 2004-05 129,197 24,319 31,415 184,931 This change reduces inspection costs because handlers have the option of using the new verification process instead of having kiwifruit reinspected to conform to PLI requirements. Additionally, reinspection can delay shipments because kiwifruit cannot be shipped until reinspection has been completed by the FSIS. The Committee considered the alternative of maintaining the status quo, but this was not viable. As an option to reinspection, identity of the lot can be achieved through the verification number, which provides a trace back to the original inspection certificate. Additionally, such kiwifruit has already met the minimum requirements of the marketing order. It is anticipated that the rule provides a cost savings to handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the kiwifruit industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the April 6, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these issues. An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the **Federal Register** on October 3, 2006. Copies of the rule were mailed by the Committee's staff to all Committee members and kiwifruit handlers. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the **Federal Register** . That rule provided for a 60-day comment period which ended December 4, 2006. No comments were received. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Paperwork Reduction Act The interim final rule published on October 3, 2006, provided a 60-day period for comments on the reporting requirements in that rule. No comments were received. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ], the information collection was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under OMB No. 0581-0238, “Kiwifruit Grown in California.” After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 58246, October 3, 2006) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920 Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN CALIFORNIA Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 920, which was published at 71 FR 58246 on October 3, 2006, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: February 12, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-2732 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 958 [Docket No. AMS-FV-06-0179; FV06-958-1 FIR] Onions Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, OR; Change in Reporting Requirements AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture

(USDA)is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule changing the reporting requirements established under the Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion marketing order, which regulates the handling of onions grown in designated counties in Idaho and Oregon and is administered locally by the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee. This rule continues in effect the action that: Established a credit application procedure for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted to exempt special purpose outlets; changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing, and for special purpose shipments; and added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan M. Hiller, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Manager, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:

(503)326-2724, Fax:

(503)326-7440, or E-mail: *Susan.Hiller@usda.gov* or *GaryD.Olson@usda.gov.* Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:

(202)720-2491, Fax:

(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 130 and Marketing Order No. 958, both as amended (7 CFR part 958), regulating the handling of onions grown in designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule continues in effect the action that established an application procedure for handlers to receive credit for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted to exempt special purpose outlets; changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing; changed the reporting requirements for special purpose shipments; and added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment. These actions were unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on June 15, 2006. Section 958.53 provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to exempt special purpose shipments from assessment and handling regulations established under the order. Under this authority, § 958.328(e) exempts onions for planting, livestock feed, charity, dehydration, canning, freezing, extraction, and pickling from the minimum grade, size, maturity, assessment, and inspection requirements. Section 958.56 provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to prescribe safeguards to prevent onions from entering channels of trade for other than the purpose authorized. Safeguards in effect are delineated in § 958.328(f). Section 958.65 provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to require such reports and other information as may be necessary for the Committee to perform its duties. The Committee conducted an industry-wide meeting on January 17, 2006, to review the compliance and safeguard provisions of the order. The Committee appointed a Compliance Subcommittee, which met on May 16, 2006, to review the comments received. The three main areas of concern expressed by industry members were:

(1)The need to provide a procedure for handlers to obtain credit for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted into exempt special purpose outlets;

(2)improving the method of reporting fresh market onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing; and

(3)improving and streamlining the safeguards for special purpose shipments. An overriding concern expressed was the need to decrease the reporting burden on receivers (buyers) of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions. The Committee met on June 15, 2006, to hear the report of the Compliance Subcommittee. The Committee thereafter unanimously recommended changing the reporting requirements established under the order to address these three areas of concern. The Committee recommended adding a new § 958.250 and a new form, “Assessment Credit Report”, which establishes a procedure for those handlers who would like credit for assessments paid on onions in accordance with §§ 958.42 and 958.240 that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area, or shipped into special purpose outlets. The Committee also recommended that “disposal” be added to § 958.328(e) as a special purpose to allow handlers to receive assessment credit on onions for which assessments have been paid when such onions are disposed of. Disposal means destroying the onions, generally by burying the onions in special pits. The Committee unanimously recommended changing the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing in § 958.328(d) by removing receiver reporting requirements. Previously, the name of Form No. FV-37 was the “Rehandling of Onions Report”, which handlers found confusing and unrelated to the actual activity. The form has been renamed “Fresh Cut Report” (same form number) and will be submitted by handlers to report multiple shipments rather than individual shipments. The Committee agreed with industry concerns that reporting burdens should not be placed on the receivers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions. Receivers are able to acquire onions from regions that do not have a marketing order in effect and thus avoid reporting requirements. The Committee received information that handlers in the production area may have lost sales due to receiver reporting requirements. This rule also continues in effect the action that changed the safeguard reporting requirements in § 958.328(f) by clarifying that the safeguard procedures are required only for onions shipped outside the Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion production area. Under the new safeguard procedures, with newly revised forms, handlers will notify the Committee and obtain a Certificate of Privilege permit number by completing form FV-34, “Application to Make Special Purpose Shipments—Certificate of Privilege.” Receivers of special purpose onions will only need to complete form FV-36, “Special Purpose Shipment Receiver Certification” indicating they will use the onions in an approved special purpose outlet. Receivers will no longer be required to submit form FV-35, “Onion Diversion Report” for every shipment. Handlers will submit additional information to the Committee on form FV-34, “Application to Make Special Purpose Shipments—Certificate of Privilege.” This information includes type of sale, total hundredweight for the sale, and the type of container for the sale. This form can be used to report multiple shipments. These changes are intended to enhance compliance with the special purpose shipment procedures established under the order and contribute to the efficient operation of the program. And finally, this rule continues in effect the action that reorganized the rules and regulations issued under this order by removing the heading “Subpart—Assessment Rates” and adding a new heading “Subpart—Rules and Regulations.” Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service

(NASS)reported in the “Vegetables 2005 Summary”, published in January 2006, that the total F.O.B. value of onions in the regulated production area for 2005 was $148,685,000. Therefore, based on an industry of 250 producers, 38 handlers, and 24 receivers, the majority of producers, handlers, and receivers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions may be classified as small entities. This rule continues in effect the action that added a new § 958.250, which establishes an application procedure for handlers to receive credit for assessments paid on onions in accordance with §§ 958.42 and 958.240 that are subsequently regraded, resorted, repacked within the production area, or sent to exempt special purpose outlets. This rule also finalizes the action that added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment. The rule also continues in effect the action that changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing and for special purpose shipments by reducing receiver reporting requirements and streamlining handler reporting requirements. Regarding the impact of these actions on affected entities, this rule imposes minimal additional costs. This rule continues in effect the action that established a procedure to make it easier for handlers to apply for an assessment credit. The change in the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing, as well as the change to the safeguards for special purpose shipments were requested by industry members and should decrease the overall reporting burden. The benefits of this rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or lesser for small handlers or producers than for larger entities. An alternative to these actions would be to have handlers report onion shipments rather than utilizing the information from each handler's inspection certificates. However, most handlers were opposed to this alternative because it would increase their reporting burden. As with other similar marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. The Committee has a number of appointed subcommittees to review certain issues and make recommendations to the Committee. The Compliance Subcommittee met on May 16, 2006, and discussed these issues in detail. All interested persons were invited to attend this meeting and participate in the industry's deliberations. Further, the Committee's meeting on June 15, 2006, was widely publicized throughout the onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the June 15, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the **Federal Register** on November 7, 2006. Copies of the rule were mailed by the Committee's staff to all Committee members, onion handlers, and interested persons. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the **Federal Register** . That rule provided for a 60-day comment period, which ended January 8, 2007. No comments were received. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Paperwork Reduction Act The interim final rule published on November 7, 2006, provided a 60-day period for comments on the reporting requirements in that rule. No comments were received. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection requirements that are contained in this rule were approved by OMB, under OMB No. 0581-0241, “Onions Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, M.O. No. 958.” In summary, this rule continues in effect the actions that established an application procedure for handlers to receive credit for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted to exempt special purpose outlets; changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing; added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment; and changed the reporting requirements for special purpose shipments. This rule continues in effect the actions that removed reporting requirements for receivers and streamlined handler reporting requirements. These changes should enhance compliance with the special purpose shipment procedures established under the marketing order and contribute to the efficient operation of the program. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing this interim final rule, without change, as published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 65037, November 7, 2006) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 958 Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 958—ONIONS GROWN IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN IDAHO, AND MALHEUR COUNTY, OREGON Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 958, which was published at 71 FR 65037 on November 7, 2006, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: February 12, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-2724 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Part 111 [Notice 2007-04] Policy Statement Establishing a Pilot Program for Probable Cause Hearings AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Statement of policy. SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) is establishing a pilot program that will allow respondents in enforcement proceedings under the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (“FECA”), to have an oral hearing before the Commission. Hearings will take place prior to the Commission's consideration of the General Counsel's recommendation on whether to find probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. The Commission will grant a request for a probable cause hearing if any two commissioners agree to hold a hearing. The program will provide respondents with the opportunity to present arguments to the Commission directly and give the Commission an opportunity to ask relevant questions. Further information about the procedures for the pilot program is provided in the supplementary information that follows. DATES: *Effective Date:* February 16, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark D. Shonkwiler, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463,

(202)694-1650 or

(800)424-9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Election Commission is establishing a pilot program to afford respondents in pending enforcement matters the opportunity to participate in hearings (generally through counsel) and present oral arguments directly to the Commissioners, prior to any Commission determination of whether to find probable cause to believe that respondents violated FECA. 1 1 The Commission is appending to this statement a general description of its enforcement procedures (“Basic Commission Enforcement Procedure”). These procedures are prescribed by statute and regulation. See 2 U.S.C. 437g; 11 CFR part 111. I. Background On June 11, 2003, the Commission held a hearing concerning its enforcement procedures. The Commission received comments from those in the regulated community, many of whom argued for increased transparency in Commission procedures and expanded opportunities to contest allegations. 2 In response to issues raised at the hearing, the Commission has made a number of changes, such as allowing Respondents to have access to their deposition transcripts, *See Statement of Policy Regarding Deposition Transcripts in Nonpublic Investigations* , 68 FR 50688 (August 22, 2003), and clarifying questions concerning treasurer liability for violations of the FECA, *See Statement of Policy Regarding Treasurers Subject to Enforcement Proceedings* , 70 FR 3 (January 3, 2005). 2 The comments from these 2003 proceedings are available online at *http://www.fec.gov/agenda/agendas2003/notice2003-09/comments.shtml.* On December 8, 2006, the Commission published a proposal for a pilot program for probable cause hearings, and sought comments from the regulated community. *See Proposed Policy Statement Establishing Pilot Program for Probable Cause Hearings* , 71 FR 71088 (Dec. 8, 2006). The comment period on the proposed policy statement closed on January 5, 2007. The Commission received four comments, all of which endorsed the proposed pilot program for probable cause hearings. These comments are available at *http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml#proposed* under the heading “Pilot Program for Probable Cause Hearings.” II. Procedures for Probable Cause Hearings A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing A respondent may request a probable cause hearing when the enforcement process reaches the probable cause determination stage (see 11 CFR 111.16—111.17) and the respondent submits a probable cause response brief to the Office of General Counsel. The General Counsel will attach a cover letter to its probable cause brief to inform the respondent of the opportunity to request an oral hearing before the Commission. *See* 11 CFR 111.16(b). Hearings are voluntary and no adverse inference will be drawn by the Commission based on a respondent's request or waiver of such a hearing. The respondent must include a written request for a hearing as a part of its properly and timely filed reply brief under 11 CFR 111.16(c). Any request for a hearing must state with specificity why the hearing is being requested and what issues the respondent expects to address. Absent good cause, to be determined at the sole discretion of the Commission, late requests will not be accepted. Respondents are responsible for ensuring that their request is timely received. All requests for hearings, scheduling and format inquiries, document submissions, and any other inquiries related to the probable cause hearings should be directed to the Office of General Counsel. The Commission will grant a request for an oral hearing if any two Commissioners agree that a hearing would help resolve significant or novel legal issues, or significant questions about the application of the law to the facts. The Commission will inform the respondent whether the Commission is granting the respondent's request within 30 days of receiving the respondent's brief. Respondents who submitted their probable cause briefs prior to the effective date of this policy statement may request in writing a probable cause hearing if the Commission has not made its probable cause determination. Two commenters suggested that the Commission offer oral hearings at other stages of the enforcement process, including prior to a Commission decision to enter into pre-probable cause conciliation. The commenters provided no specific suggestion as to how such hearings at other stages of the enforcement process would benefit the decision-making process. The Commission declines to adopt such an expansion of the pilot program at this time. B. Hearing Procedures The purpose of the oral hearing is to provide a respondent an opportunity to present his or her arguments in person to the Commissioners *before* the Commission makes a determination that there is “probable cause to believe” that the respondent violated the Act or Commission regulations. Consistent with current Commission regulations, any respondent may be represented by counsel, at the respondent's own expense, or may appear *pro se* at any probable cause hearing. *See* 11 CFR 111.23. Respondents (or their counsel) will have the opportunity to present their arguments, and Commissioners, the General Counsel, and the Staff Director will have the opportunity to pose questions to the respondent, or respondent's counsel, if represented. One commenter suggested that the proposed probable cause hearing procedure be revised to exclude any questioning of respondents or respondents' counsel by the Commission's General Counsel or Staff Director, as this would be a continuation of the completed investigation and would offer little value to the Commission. The Commission rejects this suggestion. The Commission believes that the participation of the General Counsel and Staff Director in the hearings is appropriate and may often prove helpful to the Commission. Respondents may discuss any issues presented in the enforcement matter, including potential liability and calculation of a civil penalty. Hearings are confidential and not open to the public; generally only respondents and their counsel may attend. Attendance by any other parties must be approved by the Commission in advance. The Commission will determine the format and time allotted for each hearing at its discretion. Among the factors that the Commission may consider are agency time constraints, the complexity of the issues raised, the number of respondents involved, and Commission interest. The Commission will determine the amount of time allocated for each portion of the hearing, and these time limits may vary from hearing to hearing. The Commission anticipates that most hearings will begin with a brief opening statement by respondent or respondents' counsel, followed by questioning from the Commissioners, General Counsel, and Staff Director. Hearings will normally conclude with the respondent or respondent's counsel's closing remarks. Third party witnesses or other co-respondents may not be called to testify at a respondent's oral hearing, nor may a respondents' counsel call the respondent to testify. However, the Commission may request that the respondent submit supplementary information or briefing after the probable cause hearing. The Commission discourages voluminous submissions. Supplementary information may not be submitted more than ten days after the oral hearing, unless the Commission's request for information imposes a different, Commission-approved deadline. Materials requested by the Commission, and materials considered by the Commission in making its “probable cause to believe” determination, may be made part of the public record pursuant to the Commission's *Statement of Policy Regarding Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and Related Files,* 68 FR 70426 (Dec. 18, 2003). The Commission will have transcripts made of the hearings. The transcripts will become a part of the record for the enforcement matter and may be relied upon for determinations made by the Commission. Respondent may be bound by any representations made by respondent or respondents' counsel at a hearing. The Commission will make the transcripts available to the respondent as soon as practicable after the hearing, and the respondent may purchase copies of the transcript. Transcripts will be made public after the matter is closed in accordance with Commission policies on disclosure. 3 3 The Commission's *Statement of Policy Regarding Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and Related Files,* 68 FR 70426 (Dec. 18, 2003) is hereby amended to include disclosure of transcripts from probable cause hearings. C. Cases Involving Multiple Respondents In cases involving multiple respondents, the Commission will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to structure any hearing(s) separately or as joint hearings for all respondents. Respondents are encouraged to advise the Commission of their preferences. Co-respondents may request joint hearings if each participating co-respondent provides an unconditional waiver of confidentiality with respect to other participating co-respondents and their counsel and a nondisclosure agreement. If separate hearings are held, each respondent will have access to the transcripts from his/her/its own hearing, but not transcripts of other co-respondents' hearings, unless co-respondents specifically provide written consent to the Commission granting access to such transcript(s). D. Scheduling of Hearings The Commission will seek to hold the hearing in a timely manner after receiving respondents' request for a hearing. The Commission will attempt to schedule the hearings at a mutually acceptable date and time. However, if a respondent is unable to accommodate the Commission's schedule, the Commission may decline to hold a hearing. The Commission reserves the right to reschedule any hearing. Where necessary, the Commission reserves the right to request from a respondent an agreement tolling any upcoming deadline, including any statutory deadline or other deadline found in 11 CFR part 111. E. Pilot Program The pilot program will last eight months from the time that this policy is approved. After eight months, a vote will be scheduled on whether the program should continue. The program will remain in effect until that vote is taken. Four affirmative votes will be required to extend or make permanent the program. The program will be terminated after that vote if there are not four affirmative votes to make the program permanent or to extend it for some time period. The Commission may terminate or modify this pilot program through additional policy statements prior to the eighth month of the pilot program by an affirmative vote of four of its members. If the pilot program is terminated, previously requested hearings may still be held. F. Conclusion The Commission urges respondents to consider carefully the costs and benefits of proceeding to probable cause briefings and/or hearings. The hearings are optional and no negative inference will be drawn if respondents do not request a hearing. Currently, the majority of the Commission's cases are settled through pre-probable cause conciliation. Proceeding to probable cause briefing requires a substantial investment of the Commission's limited resources. Consistent with the goal of expeditious resolution of enforcement matters, the Commission encourages pre-probable cause conciliation. The Commission has a practice in many cases of reducing the civil penalty it seeks through its opening settlement offer in pre-probable cause conciliation. However, once pre-probable cause conciliation has been terminated, this reduction (normally 25%) is no longer available and the civil penalty will generally increase. This notice represents a general statement of policy announcing the general course of action that the Commission intends to follow. This policy statement does not constitute an agency regulation requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunities for public participation, prior publication, and delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). As such, it does not bind the Commission or any member of the general public. The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), which apply when notice and comment are required by the APA or another statute, are not applicable. Dated: February 12, 2007. Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. Appendix Basic Commission Enforcement Procedure The Commission's enforcement procedures are set forth at 11 CFR part 111. An enforcement matter may be initiated by a complaint or on the basis of information ascertained by the Commission in the normal course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities. 11 CFR 111.3. If a complaint substantially complies with certain requirements set forth in 11 CFR 111.4, within five days of receipt the Office of General Counsel notifies each party determined to be a respondent that a complaint has been filed, provides a copy of the complaint, and advises each respondent of Commission compliance procedures. 11 CFR 111.5. A respondent then has 15 days from receipt of the notification from the Office of General Counsel to submit a letter or memorandum to the Commission setting forth reasons why the Commission should take no action on the basis of the complaint. 11 CFR 111.6. Following receipt of such letter or memorandum, or expiration of the 15-day period, the Office of General Counsel may recommend to the Commission whether or not it should find “reason to believe” that a respondent has committed or is about to commit a violation of the Act or Commission regulations. 11 CFR 111.7(a). 4 With respect to internally-generated matters (e.g., referrals from the Commission's Audit or Reports Analysis Divisions), the Office of General Counsel may recommend that the Commission find “reason to believe” that a respondent has committed or is about to commit a violation of the Act or Commission regulations on the basis of information ascertained by the Commission in the normal course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities, or on the basis of a referral from an agency of the United States or any state. If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote of four members that it has “reason to believe” that a respondent violated the Act or Commission regulations, the respondent must be notified by letter of the Commission's finding(s). 11 CFR 111.9(a). 5 The Office of General Counsel will also provide the respondent with a Factual and Legal Analysis, which will set forth the bases for the Commission's finding of reason to believe. 4 The Office of General Counsel may also recommend that the Commission find no “reason to believe” that a violation has been committed to is about to be committed, or that the Commission otherwise dismiss a complaint without regard to the provisions of 11 CFR 111.6(a). 11 CFR 111.7(b). 5 If the Commission finds no “reason to believe,” or otherwise terminates its proceedings, the Office of General Counsel shall advise the complainant and respondent(s) by letter. 11 CFR 111.9(b). After the Commission makes a “reason to believe” finding, an investigation is conducted by the Office of General Counsel, in which the Commission may undertake field investigations, audits, and other methods of information-gathering. 11 CFR 111.10. Additionally, the Commission may issue subpoenas to order any person to submit sworn written answers to written questions, to provide documents, or to appear for a deposition. 11 CFR 111.11-111.12. Any person who is subpoenaed may submit a motion to the Commission for it to be quashed or modified. 11 CFR 111.15. Following a “reason to believe” finding, the Commission may attempt to reach a conciliation agreement with the respondent(s) prior to reaching the “probable cause” stage of enforcement ( *i.e.* , a pre-probable cause conciliation agreement). See 11 CFR 111.18(d). If the Commission is unable to reach a pre-probable cause conciliation agreement with the respondent, or determines that such a conciliation agreement would not be appropriate, upon completion of the investigation referenced in the preceding paragraph, the Office of General Counsel prepares a brief setting forth its position on the factual and legal issues of the matter and containing a recommendation on whether or not the Commission should find “probable cause to believe” that a violation has occurred or is about to occur. 11 CFR 111.16(a). The Office of General Counsel notifies the respondent(s) of this recommendation and provides a copy of the probable cause brief. 11 CFR 111.16(b). The respondent(s) may file a written response to the probable cause brief within fifteen days of receiving said brief. 11 CFR 111.16(c). After reviewing this response, the Office of General Counsel shall advise the Commission in writing whether it intends to proceed with the recommendation or to withdraw the recommendation from Commission consideration. 11 CFR 111.16(d). If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote of four members that there is “probable cause to believe” that a respondent has violated the Act or Commission regulations, the Commission authorizes the Office of General Counsel to notify the respondent by letter of this determination. 11 CFR 111.17(a). Upon a Commission finding of “probable cause to believe,” the Commission must attempt to reach a conciliation agreement with the respondent. 11 CFR 111.18(a). If no conciliation agreement is finalized within the time period specified in 11 CFR 111.18(c), the Office of General Counsel may recommend to the Commission that it authorize a civil action for relief in the appropriate court. 11 CFR 111.19(a). Commencement of such civil action requires an affirmative vote of four members of the Commission. 11 CFR 111.19(b). The Commission may enter into a conciliation agreement with respondent after authorizing a civil action. 11 CFR 111.19(c). [FR Doc. E7-2723 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24036; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-04-AD; Amendment 39-14947; AD 2007-04-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sicma Aero Seat, Passenger Seat Assemblies AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies. This AD requires modifying the aft track fittings on these passenger seat assemblies by installing new tab locks, and then torquing the aft track fitting locking bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of passenger seat assemblies, especially during emergency conditions, leading to occupant injury. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD from Sicma Aero Seat, 7 Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 Issoudun, France, *telephone:*

(33)54 03 39 39; *fax:*

(33)54 03 15 16. You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; *telephone*

(781)238-7161; *fax*

(781)238-7170; *e-mail: Jeffrey.lee@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to certain Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies. We published the proposed AD in the **Federal Register** on March 17, 2006 (71 FR 13787). That action proposed to require modifying the aft track fittings on these passenger seat assemblies by installing new tab locks, and then torquing the aft track fitting locking bolts. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Add Airbus A340 Series Airplanes One commenter, Airbus, requests that we add the Airbus A340 series airplanes to the list of airplanes these seats could be installed on. We agree and added the A340 series airplanes to the list in applicability paragraph (c). There are no U.S.-registered A340 series airplanes, so the costs of compliance do not change in the AD. Add Reference to An Alternative Method of Compliance

(AMOC)Airbus requests that we take into account and add a reference to the AMOC of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. SB-90-25-009, as allowed by France AD 1994-085 R2. We do not agree. Allowing this AMOC would require operators to obtain and use procedures supplied by the manufacturer. Our AD process already provides a method for operators to request an AMOC, if they so desire. We did not change the AD. Correction to Annex 1 Reference We discovered that we inadvertently referenced Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin Annex 1 as Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999. We corrected it to Annex 1, Issue 1, dated March 31, 1999. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 239,209 Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies, installed on 1,016 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per airplane to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $235 per airplane. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $563,880. The manufacturer has indicated they might provide the parts at no cost to the operators. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **2007-04-15 Sicma Aero Seat:** Amendment 39-14947. Docket No. FAA-2006-24036; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-04-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 42XX series, 50XX series, 63XX series, 65XX series, 71XX series, 78XX series, 83XX series, 85XX series, 90XX series, 91XX series, and 92XX series, with aft track fittings, P/N 90-000120-790-0, installed. Refer to Annex 1, Issue 1, dated March 31, 1999, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 90-25-005, Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999, for the full part numbers. These seat assemblies are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, and A340 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of loose and unlocked aft track fittings on Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of passenger seat assemblies, especially during emergency conditions, leading to occupant injury. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done. Aft Track Fitting Modification

(f)Modify aft track fittings, P/N 90-000120-790-0, by installing new tab locks, P/N 00-4399, under the locking bolts.

(g)Torque locking bolts to 17.4-to-34.7 inch pounds.

(h)Stamp amendment “Z” on the seat assembly identification plate.

(i)Use the Accomplishment Instructions of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 90-25-005, Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999, to do these actions. Alternative Methods of Compliance

(j)The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information

(k)Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile, AD 1994-085(AB) R2, dated July 13, 1999, also addresses the subject of this AD.

(l)Contact Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone

(781)238-7161; fax

(781)238-7170; *e-mail: Jeffrey.lee@faa.gov* for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(m)You must use Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 90-25-005, Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999, and Annex 1, Issue 1, dated March 31, 1999, of that service bulletin to perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Sicma Aero Seat, 7 Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 Issoudun, France, telephone:

(33)54 03 39 39; fax:

(33)54 03 15 16, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 8, 2007. Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2506 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25926; Directorate Identifier 2000-CE-17-AD; Amendment 39-14946; AD 2003-17-05R1] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Short Brothers & Harland Ltd. Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)to revise AD 2003-17-05, which applies to Short Brothers & Harland (Shorts) Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. AD 2003-17-05 currently establishes a technical service life for these airplanes and allows you to incorporate modifications, inspections, and replacements of certain life limited items to extend the life limits of these airplanes. Since we issued AD 2003-17-05, Shorts Service Bulletin SB 51-51 was revised to Revision 8, dated July 5, 2006, and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, issued an AD for the European Community to correct an unsafe condition for the specified product. AD 2003-17-05 contains conflicting information on the repetitive visual inspection requirement. Consequently, this AD would retain the technical service life for these airplanes; would continue to allow modifications, inspections, and replacements of certain life limited items to extend the life limits of these airplanes; and would clarify the repetitive visual inspection requirement between one of the service bulletins and the maintenance program if an operator chooses to extend the life limit. The actions specified by this AD are intended to clarify the inspection information to prevent failure of critical structure of the aircraft caused by fatigue. DATES: This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 8, dated July 5, 2006; listed in this AD as of March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983; and Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 2002, listed in this AD as of September 29, 2003 (68 FR 50689, August 22, 2003). ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland; *telephone:* 011 44

(0)28 9045 8444; *facsimile:* 011 44

(0)28 9073 3396. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2006-25926; Directorate Identifier 2000-CE-17-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*

(816)329-4059; *facsimile:*

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On November 20, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Shorts Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)on November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68766). The NPRM proposed to revise AD 2003-17-05 to retain the technical service life for these airplanes; continue to allow modifications, inspections, and replacements of certain life limited items to extend the life limits of these airplanes; and clarify the repetitive visual inspection requirement between one of the service bulletins and the maintenance program if an operator chooses to extend the life limit. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment: Comment Issue No. 1: Proposed Revision or Supersedure of EASA AD 2006-0190 Shorts provides comments pertaining to their proposal to EASA to revise or supersede EASA AD 2006-0190. Shorts recommends that the FAA consider postponing any revision to AD 2003-17-05 until EASA revises or supersedes EASA AD 2006-0190. For clarification reasons, this is a revision to AD 2003-17-05. However, EASA superseded EASA AD 2006-0190 with EASA AD 2007-0013, *dated:* January 11, 2007, which was after the closing of the comment period of this NPRM. The FAA has evaluated the new EASA AD and has determined that this revised FAA AD incorporates the intent of the EASA AD without any changes needed. Please note that the EASA AD does not address the six airplanes that are covered by Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 2002 as this AD does. We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment. Comment Issue No. 2: Life Limits of the Model SC-7 Series 3 Airplane, Serial Number (S/N) SH1845 Shorts provides comments that it would be prudent to include the increase of the life limits of the Model SC-7 Series 3 airplane, S/N SH1845, that result from an approved alternative method of compliance (AMOC). The increase of the life limits for the Model SC-7 Series 3 airplane, S/N SH1845, was approved as part of an AMOC. The life limit originally published in the AD remains valid. It is the AMOC that extends it. Any FAA-approved AMOC will include actions necessary to address the unsafe condition in an acceptable manner to deviate from the AD. The AD remains in effect if the AMOC is not complied with. For this reason, it would not be appropriate to change the AD to incorporate an AMOC. This AD maintains the effectivity of all AMOCs. We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD would affect 22 airplanes in the U.S. registry. Since the action of the AD is life-limiting the structural airframe, the actual operating cost of this AD is the cost of the airplane minus any non-life-limited parts that are salvageable and can be sold. There is no cost impact difference in this AD than that originally presented in AD 2003-17-05, except for the recalculation of the labor costs using the revised figure of $80 per hour instead of $65 per hour. The following paragraphs present the costs if you choose to incorporate the inspections and modifications necessary to extend the life limit. We estimate the following costs to do the optional aircraft life extension on 16 airplanes (all airplanes that do not have serial number SH1889, SH1943, SH1960, SH1845, SH1847, or SH1883) as prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 350 work-hours × $80 per hour = $28,000 $90,000 $118,000 $1,888,000 We estimate the following to do the aircraft life extension prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52 (which includes Service Bulletin 51-51) for serial numbers SH1889, SH1943, and SH1960: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 470 work-hours × $80 per hour = $37,600 $112,000 $149,600 $448,800 We estimate the following to do the aircraft life extension prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52 for serial numbers SH1845, SH1847, and SH1883: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 120 work-hours × $80 per hour = $9,600 $22,000 $31,600 $94,800 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 AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25926; Directorate Identifier 2000-CE-17-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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 removing Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2003-17-05, Amendment 39-13279 (68 FR 50689, August 22, 2003), and adding the following new AD: **2003-17-05R1 Short Brothers & Harland Ltd.:** Amendment 39-14946; Docket No. FAA-2006-25926; Directorate Identifier 2000-CE-17-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD revises AD 2003-17-05, Amendment 39-13279. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This revised AD results from conflicting information of the repetitive inspection requirement between one of the service bulletins and the maintenance program if an operator chooses to extend the life limit. We are issuing this AD to clarify the inspection information to prevent failure of critical structure of the aircraft caused by fatigue. Compliance

(e)Do not operate the airplane upon accumulating the applicable life limit or within the next 90 days after September 29, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-17-05), whichever occurs later. For owners/operators that do not have a record of the number of flights on the aircraft, assume the number of flights on the basis of two per operating hour. The following table presents the life limits: Table 1.—Original Life Limits Serial No. Life limit

(1)SH1845 and SH1883 10,000 hours time-in-service (TIS).

(2)SH1847 15,200 hours TIS.

(3)SH1889 13,805 flights.

(4)SH1943 11,306 flights.

(5)SH1960 4,142 flights.

(6)All airplanes that do not have serial number SH1845, SH1883, SH1847, SH1889, SH1943, or SH1960 20,000 flights.

(f)*For airplanes with serial numbers SH1845, SH1847, or SH1883:* You can extend the life limits by doing the actions of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 2002 (and all service information or modifications referenced in the Planning Information section of the service bulletin), and Shorts Skyvan Maintenance Program, Amendment List No. 22, dated May 7, 2003, or Amendment List No. 23, dated December 14, 2004, or Amendment List No. 24, dated November 2, 2006. You may use any future amendment to this maintenance program if it does not change the inspection intervals, requirements, or the life limits of this AD or the previous amendments. The following table presents the extended life limit: Table 2.—Extended Life Limits After Incorporation of Required Inspections and Modifications

(1)SH1845 13,456 hours TIS.

(2)SH1847 20,200 hours TIS.

(3)SH1883 15,000 hours TIS.

(g)*For airplanes with serial numbers SH1889, SH1943, or SH1960:* You can extend the life limits by doing the actions of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 2002 (and all service information or modifications referenced in the Planning Information section of the service bulletin including Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983; or Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 8, dated: July 5, 2006. You cannot use Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 7, dated: January 2005.), and Shorts Skyvan Maintenance Program, Amendment List No. 22, dated May 7, 2003, or Amendment List No. 23, dated December 14, 2004, or Amendment List No. 24, dated November 2, 2006. You may use any future amendment to this maintenance program if it does not change the inspection intervals, requirements, or the life limits of this AD or the previous amendments. The following table presents the extended life limit: Table 3.—Extended Life Limits After Incorporation of Required Inspections and Modifications Serial No. Extended life limit

(1)SH1889 20,094 flights.

(2)SH1943 17,325 flights.

(3)SH1960 8,449 flights.

(h)*For airplanes that do not have serial numbers SH1845, SH1847, SH1883, SH1889, SH1943, or SH1960:* You can extend the life limit to 27,000 flights by doing the actions of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983; or Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 8, dated: July 5, 2006; and Shorts Skyvan Maintenance Program, Amendment List No. 22, dated May 7, 2003; or Amendment List No. 23, dated December 14, 2004 or Amendment List No. 24, dated November 2, 2006. You may use any future amendment to this maintenance program if it does not change the inspection intervals, requirements, or the life limits of this AD or the previous amendments. You cannot use Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 7, dated: January 2005.

(i)The repetitive visual inspection requirements using Shorts Service Bulletin No. 57-59, which is referenced on page 3 of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983, paragraph C (Special limitations) are every 2,400 flights; and the repetitive visual inspection program in Skyvan Maintenance Program, Maintenance Program Appendix 1, parts A and B (Section 57-00, Item 3) are every 1,100 flights or 800 hours TIS intervals, whichever occurs first. You must use the repetitive inspection intervals of the Skyvan Maintenance Program for the repetitive inspection of the wing structure, skin, and skin doublers to be every 1,100 flights or 800 hours TIS, whichever occurs first and not the 2,400 flights as stated in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(j)The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, *ATTN:* Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*

(816)329-4059; *facsimile:*

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(k)AMOCs approved for AD 2003-17-05 are approved for this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(l)You must use Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-52, Revision No: 4, dated July 16, 2002; or Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 6, dated March 14, 1983; or Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 8, dated July 5, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 8, dated July 5, 2006, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983; and Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 2002, on September 29, 2003 (68 FR 50689, August 22, 2003).

(3)For service information identified in this AD, contact Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland; *telephone:* 011 44

(0)28 9045 8444; *facsimile:* 011 44

(0)28 9073 3396.

(4)You may review copies at the FAA, FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 8, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2505 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25637; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-43-AD; Amendment 39-14939; AD 2007-04-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain EADS SOCATA airplanes. This AD requires you to inspect the pilot door locking stop-fittings for correct length and, if any incorrect length pilot door locking stop-fittings are found, replace them. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by the airworthiness authority for France. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace incorrect length pilot door locking stop-fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in depressurization of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007. As of March 23, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation. ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; *telephone:* 33 (0)5 62 41 73 00; *fax:* 33 (0)5 62 41 76 54; or SOCATA AIRCRAFT, INC., North Perry Airport, 7501 South Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines, FL 33023; *telephone:*

(954)893-1400; *fax:*

(954)964-4141. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is FAA-2006-25637; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-43-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*

(816)329-4119; *fax:*

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On September 20, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)on September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56414). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the pilot door locking stop fittings for correct length and, if any incorrect length pilot door locking stop fittings are found, replace them. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment: Comment Issue No 1: Applicability EADS SOCATA comments that EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-131, ATA No. 53, dated July 2005, only applies to TBM 700 aircraft that are equipped with a pilot door. As such, this AD should only apply to TBM 700 aircraft that are equipped with a pilot door. We agree and have changed the applicability statement so that it applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 126 through 322, equipped with a pilot door, that are certificated in any category. Comment Issue No 2: Material Incorporated by Reference Jack Buster of the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of this proposed action be incorporated by reference and published in the Docket Management System (DMS). We agree that the service documents are essential and should be incorporated by reference. However, we do not incorporate by reference any document in a proposed AD action; instead we incorporate by reference the document in the final rule. Since we are issuing the proposal as a final rule AD action, the service information referenced in this action will be incorporated by reference. We are currently reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins in the Department of Transportation's DMS as part of the 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. We have determined that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate since an unsafe condition exists. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard. Comment Issue No 3: Parts Manufacturer Approval

(PMA)Mr. Buster also requests that the issue of parts manufacturer approval

(PMA)be addressed in the proposed action and that all Directorates within the FAA treat the issue the same per Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866. Mr. Buster's comments are timely in that the FAA is currently reviewing this issue as it applies to all products: transport airplanes, commuter airplanes, general aviation airplanes, engines and propellers, rotorcraft, and appliances. The FAA acknowledges that there are different ways of addressing this issue to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and have made a final determination, we will consider developing a standardized approach and standardized language on how to address PMA parts in airworthiness directives. We have determined that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate since an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be done to ensure continued safety. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 157 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection and repair: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 4.5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $360 $15 $375 $58,875 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 AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-25637; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-43-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows: **2007-04-08 EADS SOCATA:** Amendment 39-14939; Docket No. FAA-2006-25637; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-43-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 126 through 322, equipped with a pilot door, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a pilot door adjustment procedure not being done properly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect length pilot door locking stop-fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in depressurization of the airplane. Compliance

(e)*To address this problem, you must do the following:* Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Inspect the pilot door locking stop-fittings for correct length Within 30 days after March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), unless already done Follow EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-131, ATA No. 53, dated July 2005.

(2)If any incorrect length pilot door locking stop-fittings are found, replace them Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-131, ATA No. 53, dated July 2005.

(f)If you have ordered parts and they are not available, then you may fly unpressurized until parts become available or for a period not to exceed 90 days after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, whichever occurs first. You must also fabricate and install a placard as described below. Completing the action of paragraph (e)(2) of this AD terminates the placard requirement.

(1)Fabricate (using letters at least 1/8 inch in height) a warning placard which states “This airplane is prohibited from pressurized flight.”

(2)Install the placard in full view of the pilot. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may install the placard as required in paragraph

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

(g)The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; *telephone:*

(816)329-4119; *fax:*

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-131, ATA No. 53, dated July 2005 to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; *telephone:* 33 (0)5 62 41 73 00; *fax:* 33 (0)5 62 41 76 54; or SOCATA AIRCRAFT, INC., North Perry Airport, 7501 South Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines, FL 33023; *telephone:*

(954)893-1400; *fax:*

(954)964-4141.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 6, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2507 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25892; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-120-AD; Amendment 39-14941; AD 2007-04-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR Airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all EMBRAER airplanes as described previously. This AD requires inspecting to determine the part number of the left- and right-hand windshield temperature controllers. For airplanes equipped with certain windshield temperature controllers, this AD also requires replacing the attaching hardware of the power cable terminals of the windshield temperature controllers with new, improved attaching hardware; inspecting the power cable terminals for signs of melting or damage to the terminals, cable insulation, or plastic crimping ring; and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of smoke on the flight deck caused by damage from poor electrical contact due to loosening of the attaching hardware of the power cables of certain windshield temperature controllers. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the power cable terminals of the windshield temperature controllers, which could result in smoke on the flight deck. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2125; fax

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

(AD)docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56056). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting to determine the part number of the left- and right-hand windshield temperature controllers. For airplanes equipped with certain windshield temperature controllers, that NPRM also proposed to require replacing the attaching hardware of the power cable terminals of the windshield temperature controllers with new, improved attaching hardware; inspecting the power cable terminals for signs of melting or damage to the terminals, cable insulation, or plastic crimping ring; and performing corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Revise Consequence of Unsafe Condition EMBRAER requests that we revise the possible consequence of the unsafe condition. EMBRAER states that it has confirmed that the unsafe condition is the result of overheating of the power cables of the windshield temperature controller due to loosening of the power cable attachment hardware, and that tests have shown that this condition may cause smoke on the flight deck, but not fire. EMBRAER therefore requests that we revise the statement “which could result in smoke and fire on the flight deck” to read “which could result in smoke on the flight deck.” We agree for the reasons stated and have revised the summary and paragraph

(d)of the AD accordingly. Request To Permit Records Check EMBRAER requests that we revise the NPRM to permit a maintenance records check to determine if the subject windshield temperature controller is installed on the airplane. EMBRAER states that it should be acceptable to show that the subject controller is or is not installed on the airplane by examining the airplane maintenance records rather than by requiring a physical inspection of the actual installed part. We agree for the reasons given. Therefore, we have revised paragraph

(f)of the AD to permit a maintenance records check in lieu of the required inspection, provided the part number of the subject controller can be conclusively determined from that review. Request for Publication of Service Information One commenter, the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA), requests that we revise our procedures for incorporation by reference

(IBR)of service information in ADs. MARPA asserts that ADs are frequently derived from privately-authored, copyright-protected manufacturer service documents, but that when such a document is incorporated by reference into a public document like an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes itself a public document. MARPA continues that public laws by definition must be public and cannot rely for compliance upon private writings, and that unless such writings are incorporated by reference, a court of law will not consider them in interpreting the AD and might invalidate the AD. MARPA contends that IBR service documents should be published in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. IBR was adopted to relieve the **Federal Register** from publishing documents already held by affected individuals, which traditionally meant aircraft owners and operators who received service information from manufacturers. However, MARPA contends that a new affected class of maintenance and repair organizations (MRO), component service and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations that manufacture or service alternatively certified parts under 14 CFR 21.303

(PMA)now perform a majority of aircraft maintenance. MARPA continues that service information distributed to owners and operators who are financing or leasing institutions may not reach this class, who may actually be responsible for accomplishing ADs. MARPA therefore requests that service documents deemed essential to accomplishing this proposed action be

(1)incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and

(2)published in the DMS. We understand MARPA's comment concerning IBR. The Office of the Federal Register

(PMA)parts. MARPA states: “Type certificate holders in their service documents universally ignore the possible existence of PMA parts. This is especially true with foreign manufacturers where the concept may not exist or be implemented in the country of origin. In the instant case we are aware of a Rosemount Aerospace temperature controller that carries the part number (P/N) of 3801D2 approved for replacement of Embraer P/N: 145-38558-505 (Rosemount PMA supplement number 191, dated September 5, 2002). We do not have sufficient knowledge to determine whether the Rosemount part suffers from the same deficiencies as the Goodyear part. We are concerned that it may and because the proposed action restricts applicability to the Goodyear part the possibly defective Rosemount parts may continue in operation. We believe, at the very least, the Rosemount part should be addressed in the action to advise whether the regulatory action is intended to apply or not apply to this particular part.” We do not agree. EMBRAER P/N 145-38558-505 is not a replaceable part; it is a drawing used by EMBRAER to install the Goodrich (Rosemount) controller, P/N 3801D2, during production. As the NPRM does not address deficiencies in the subject controller, but only the installation of the controller power cable mounting hardware, replacing the subject controller is not an issue of this AD. MARPA continues: “We have, in the past, issued several comments on proposed actions suggesting the incorporation of language designed to extend applicability to known or unknown alternatively approved

(PMA)parts. The Small Airplane Directorate has adopted, in whole or in part, MARPA's suggestion and we would recommend and request that the Transport Airplane Directorate coordinate with the Small Airplane Directorate to promulgate a uniform policy on this issue pursuant to Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866.” The FAA recognizes the need for standardization on this issue and is currently in the process of reviewing it at the national level. However, the Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular AD action for resolution of this matter 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. No change has been made to the final rule in regard to these concerns. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 689 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied from operator stock. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $55,120, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-04-09 Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer):** Amendment 39-14941. FAA-2006-25892; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-120-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of smoke on the flight deck caused by damage from poor electrical contact due to loosening of the attaching hardware of the power cables of certain windshield temperature controllers. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the power cable terminals of the windshield temperature controllers, which could result in smoke on the flight deck. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection of Part Number (P/N) of Controller

(f)Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number of the left- and right-hand windshield temperature controllers. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the subject controller can be conclusively determined from that review. If any windshield temperature controller is found to have a part number other than Goodrich P/N 3801D2( ), no further action is required by this AD for that controller. Replacement of Attaching Hardware, Further Inspection, and Corrective Actions

(g)Before further flight after performing the inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, for all windshield temperature controllers having Goodrich P/N 3801D2( ) or any controller for which the part number cannot be conclusively determined: Replace the attaching hardware of the power cable terminals of the controllers with new, improved attaching hardware having new part numbers. Concurrently, perform a detailed inspection for signs of melting or damage of the plastic crimping ring, cable insulation, or terminals of the power cables, and, before further flight, perform applicable corrective actions. Perform all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0043, Revision 02, dated May 25, 2006; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0013, dated June 28, 2005; as applicable. Credit for Actions Accomplished Using Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(h)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0043, dated June 28, 2005; or Revision 01, dated April 7, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the applicable corresponding actions required by this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(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 FR 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

(j)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-05-01, effective May 23, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference

(k)You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0043, Revision 02, dated May 25, 2006; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0013, dated June 28, 2005; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 6, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2510 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25470; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-090-AD; Amendment 39-14942; AD 2007-04-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes. That AD currently requires replacement of the decompression panels that are located in the smoke barrier between the passenger and main deck cargo compartment with new panels of an improved design. This new AD requires modification of the decompression panels on the smoke barrier in the main deck cargo compartment, or replacement of the smoke barrier with an improved smoke barrier, as applicable. This new AD also requires repetitive inspections of the decompression

(vent)panels on the smoke barrier and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD results from reports of decompression panels on the smoke barrier opening in flight and on the ground without a decompression event. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent opening or tearing of decompression panels, which could result in degraded cargo fire detection and suppression capability, smoke penetration into an occupied compartment, and an uncontrolled cargo fire, if a fire occurs in the main deck cargo compartment. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Letcher, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6474; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 96-24-03, amendment 39-9829 (61 FR 59319, November 22, 1996). The existing AD applies to certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43390). That NPRM proposed to require modification of the decompression panels on the smoke barrier in the main deck cargo compartment or replacement of the smoke barrier with an improved smoke barrier, as applicable. That NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections of the decompression

(vent)panels on the smoke barrier and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to add airplanes to the applicability. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM. Support for the NPRM Boeing supports the NPRM. Request To Publish Service Information The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, ADs are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated 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; traditionally, “affected individuals” means aircraft owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. MARPA 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. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in the DMS. We understand MARPA's comment concerning incorporation by reference. The Office of the Federal Register

(PMA)Parts MARPA states that the practice of requiring the replacement of a defective part with a certain part conflicts with 14 CFR 21.303. MARPA asserts that requiring installation of a certain part prevents installation of other good parts and prohibits the development of new parts. MARPA also states that the practice of requiring an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)to install a PMA part should be stopped. MARPA concludes that this practice presumes that all PMA parts are inherently defective and require an additional layer of approval. MARPA further states the NPRM does not comply with FAA Order 8040.2; that order states that replacement or installation of certain parts could have replacement parts approved under 14 CFR 21.303 based on a finding of identicality. That order also states that any parts approved under this regulation and installed should be subject to the actions of the AD and included in the applicability. MARPA states that if a PMA part is defective, then it must be addressed in an AD and not just simply implied by an AMOC requirement. MARPA suggests that we adopt language used in ADs issued by directorates other than the Transport Airplane Directorate, which specify installing an “FAA-approved equivalent part number” or “airworthy parts.” MARPA contends that the mandates contained in Section 1, paragraph (b)(1) of Executive Order 12866 are not being met because the directorates differ in their treatment of this issue. MARPA, therefore, requests that we revise the NPRM to allow use of PMA parts. We do not agree to revise this AD. 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. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 63 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with the AD. The estimated work hours and cost of parts for the modification in the table below depend on the configuration of an airplane. Estimate Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification (new action) 16-17 $12,064-15,362 $13,344-16,722 2 $26,688-33,444. Replacement (new action) 4 48,647 48,967 2 97,934. Inspection (new action) 2 None 160 2 320, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-9829 (61 FR 59319, November 22, 1996) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-04-10 Boeing:** Amendment 39-14942. Docket No. FAA-2006-25470; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-090-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 96-24-03. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of decompression panels on the smoke barrier opening in flight and on the ground without a decompression event. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent opening or tearing of decompression panels, which could result in degraded cargo fire detection and suppression capability, smoke penetration into an occupied compartment, and an uncontrolled cargo fire, if a fire occurs in the main deck cargo compartment. 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. New Requirements of This AD Modification or Replacement, as Applicable

(f)Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the decompression panels on the smoke barrier or replace the smoke barrier with an improved smoke barrier, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in Work Package 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004, as applicable. Repetitive Inspection

(g)Within 20 months or 6,000 flight hours after accomplishing the actions in paragraph

(f)of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of the decompression

(vent)panels on the smoke barrier for any changes from their installed condition, and do all corrective actions before further flight after the inspection, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in Work Package 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20 months or 6,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(i)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 6, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2511 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26049; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-177-AD; Amendment 39-14949; AD 2007-04-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) Airplanes; Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F Airplanes Equipped With Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J Engines; and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the McDonnell Douglas airplanes previously described. This AD requires replacing the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines with new, improved control modules. This AD results from a report of broken or severed wiring between engine fire detectors and the fire detection system control module, which caused the fire detection system to become non-functional without flightcrew awareness. We are issuing this AD to prevent unannunciated fire in a propulsion engine, which could cause injury to flightcrew and passengers or loss of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Meggitt Safety Systems, 1915 Voyager Avenue, Simi Valley, California 93063, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5262; fax

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

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes; Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J engines; and all Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60448). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines with new, improved control modules. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM FedEx concurs with the NPRM as written and states its intent to also modify the fire detection systems of the auxiliary power units of subject FedEx airplanes, as described in the service information mandated by the AD. Request To Clarify Service Information Requirement Hawaiian Airlines requests that we revise the NPRM to clarify what service information is acceptable for compliance with the AD. The commenter asserts that the NPRM states that the use of Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006, is acceptable for compliance. However, the commenter states that, according to Revision 1 and Revision 2 of the service bulletin, no further work is required. Therefore, the commenter inquires whether compliance with the original issue or Revision 1 of the service information will be acceptable. We partially agree. Although we can find no statement in Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2006 (which is the original issue); or Revision 2; that no further work is required, we have confirmed that Revision 1 and Revision 2 are technically identical and differ only in issues of format and style. Therefore, we have added new paragraph

(g)to the AD to specify that actions accomplished before the effective date of the AD in accordance with Revision 1 of Service Bulletin 26-34 are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of the AD. We have re-identified subsequent paragraphs of the AD accordingly. Request To Include Statement of Intent To Incorporate by Reference The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that, during the NPRM stage of AD rulemaking, the FAA state its intent to incorporate by reference

(IBR)any relevant service information. MARPA states that without such a statement in the NPRM, it is unclear whether the relevant service information will be incorporated by reference in the final rule. We do not concur with the commenter's request. When we reference certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can assume we intend to IBR that service information, as required by the Office of the Federal Register. No change to the AD is necessary in regard to the commenter's request. Request To Post IBR Documents on the Docket Management System

(DMS)MARPA asserts that IBR documents should be made available to the public by publication in the DMS, keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA therefore requests that such documents be published in the DMS prior to release of the final rule. We do not agree with this request. We are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the 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 AD is necessary in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance There are about 305 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 233 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 6 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $9,900 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $2,418,540, or $10,380 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-04-17 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-14949. Docket No. FAA-2006-26049; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-177-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas airplanes, certificated in any category; as specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

(1)All Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes;

(2)Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J engines; and

(3)All Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of broken or severed wiring between engine fire detectors and the fire detection system control module, which caused the fire detection system to become non-functional without flightcrew awareness. We are issuing this AD to prevent unannunciated fire in a propulsion engine, which could cause injury to flightcrew and passengers or loss 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. Control Module Replacement

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines with new, improved control modules, in accordance with paragraph 2., “Main Engine Control Module Replacement Instructions,” of Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006. Credit for Previous Revisions of Service Bulletins

(g)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(i)You must use Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006, contains the following effective pages: Page number Revision level shown on page Date shown on page 1-26 2 August 15, 2006. 27-61 1 July 17, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Meggitt Safety Systems, 1915 Voyager Avenue, Simi Valley, California 93063, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 8, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2639 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25563; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-083-AD; Amendment 39-14950; AD 2007-04-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25F, 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A (C-21A), 36, 36A, 55, 55B, and 55C Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25F, 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A (C-21A), 36, 36A, 55, 55B, and 55C airplanes. This AD requires modifying the left- and right-hand standby fuel pump switches. This AD also requires revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of the proper procedures to follow in the event of failure of the standby fuel pump to shut off. This AD results from a report of inadvertent operation of a standby fuel pump due to an electrical system malfunction. We are issuing this AD to prevent this inadvertent operation, which could result in inadvertent fuel transfer by the left or right wing fuel system and subsequent over-limit fuel imbalance between the left and right wing fuel loads. This imbalance could affect lateral control of the airplane which could result in reduced controllability. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Galstad, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone

(316)946-4135; fax

(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Examining the Docket You may examine the airworthiness directive

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

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25F, 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A (C-21A), 36, 36A, 55, 55B, and 55C airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 16, 2006 (71 FR 47154). That NPRM proposed to require modifying the left- and right-hand standby fuel pump switches. That NPRM also proposed to require revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the airplane flight manual

(AFM)to advise the flightcrew of the proper procedures to follow in the event of failure of the standby fuel pump to shut off. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Requests To Withdraw the NPRM One private citizen states that the flight department he works for operates three Learjet Model 35A airplanes and a Learjet Model 31 airplane. He adds that the airplanes have never had an inadvertent operation of the fuel pumps resulting in an over-limit fuel imbalance. He also notes that the fuel crossflow valve must be open in order to transfer fuel; this requires two switches to be selected—the standby fuel pump and the crossflow valve. He states that even if a standby fuel pump is inadvertently activated, no fuel will be transferred unless the crossflow valve is also open. He concludes that there is already enough protection in the system to avoid an over-limit fuel imbalance. We infer that the commenter is stating that an AD is not required. We recognize that the crossflow valve must be open for fuel to be transferred; however, as the operation of the pump may not be recognized by the flightcrew, the transfer valve may be opened in an attempt to correct an existing fuel imbalance, creating an even greater imbalance. We do not agree that there is enough protection in the system to avoid an over-limit fuel imbalance when an electrical malfunction provides power to an electric standby pump. This condition was found during an accident investigation. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Another private citizen states that his organization has operated up to 13 Learjet 20 series airplanes (some with 20,000 total airframe hours) for almost 20 years and has never encountered the unsafe condition. He adds that if this problem were to occur, it should not generate an emergency situation but simply an abnormal procedure that is addressed by the aircraft checklist. He asks what pertinent information leads to the conclusion that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes. He adds that the condition of imbalance caused by inadvertent standby pump operation, as specified in the NPRM, is not likely to occur; if it did occur, the flightcrew could read the proper procedure in the checklist. He concludes that safety is not jeopardized at all. We infer that the commenter wants us to withdraw the NPRM; we do not agree with the request. We acknowledge that existing airplane checklist procedures appear to be adequate, but using previous AFM procedures does not ensure that the imbalance will be corrected. Based on the data presented to date of over 30 reports of imbalance, we find that this AD is warranted. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Request To Publish Service Information/Incorporate by Reference in NPRM The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that ADs are based on service information that originates from the type certificate holder or its suppliers. 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 if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated by reference. MARPA believes that public laws, by definition, should be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings for compliance. MARPA adds that the legal interpretation of a document is a question of law, not of fact; therefore, unless the service document is incorporated by reference it cannot be considered. MARPA is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA also states that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates those documents. MARPA notes that the stated 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 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. MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations, component servicing, and/or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). MARPA notes that distribution to owners may, when the owner is a financing or leasing institution, not actually reach the people responsible for accomplishing the AD. Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument and published in DMS. We acknowledge MARPA's comments. 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. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents 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, as noted by the commenter, 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. In regard to MARPA'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 the 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 AD is necessary in response to these comments. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,613 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, depending on airplane configuration. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Modification Between 4 and 12 Between $1,426 and $1,470 Between $1,746 and $2,430 1,150 Between $2,007,900 and $2,794,500. AFM Revision 1 None $80 1,150 $92,000 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-04-18 Learjet:** Amendment 39-14950. Docket No. FAA-2006-25563; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-083-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the Learjet models identified in the applicable Bombardier service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Applicability by Service Bulletin Bombardier service bulletin Revision level Date Learjet model(s) SB 23-28-6 Original April 21, 1998 23. SB 24/25-28-3 2 February 21, 1998 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, and 24F-A airplanes; and 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, and 25F airplanes. SB 28/29-28-4 3 June 2, 1999 28 and 29 airplanes. SB 31-28-7 3 January 26, 2001 31 and 31A airplanes. SB 35/36-28-11 4 December 4, 2000 35 and 35A (C-21A) airplanes; 36 and 36A airplanes. SB 55-28-13 3 December 15, 2000 55, 55B and 55C airplanes. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report of inadvertent operation of a standby fuel pump due to an electrical system malfunction. We are issuing this AD to prevent this inadvertent operation, which could result in inadvertent fuel transfer by the left or right wing fuel system and subsequent over-limit fuel imbalance between the left and right wing fuel loads. This imbalance could affect lateral control of the airplane which could result in reduced controllability. Compliance

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

(f)Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the left- and right-hand standby fuel pump switches, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD. Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM)Revision

(g)Before further flight after accomplishing the modification required by paragraph

(f)of this AD: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the applicable Learjet AFM to advise the flightcrew of proper procedures to follow in the event of failure of the standby fuel pump to shut off by including the information in the applicable Learjet temporary flight manual

(TFM)changes identified in Table 2 of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of the TFM changes into the AFM. When the TFM changes have been included in the general revisions of the AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revisions is identical to that in the TFM changes. Table 2.—TFM Changes Learjet model(s) Learjet TFM change Date To the Learjet AFM 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, and 55 airplanes TFM 96-08 May 30, 1996 24 (FM-004), 24B (FM-006), 24D (FM-009), 24E (FM-011), 24F (FM-012), 24 ECR 736 (FM-008), 25 (FM-014), 25B/C (FM-016), 25D/F (FM-018), 28/29 (FM-100), 31 (FM-112), 31A (FM-121), 35/36 (FM-019), 35A/36A FC-200 (FM-102), 35A/36A FC-530 (FM-108), 55 (FM-103), 55B (FM-110), 55C (FM-114). 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, and 55 airplanes TFM 96-09 May 30, 1996 24 (FM-004), 24B (FM-006), 24D (FM-009), 24E (FM-011), 24F (FM-012), 24 ECR 736 (FM-008), 25 (FM-014), 25B/C (FM-016), 25D/F (FM-018), 28/29 (FM-100), 31 (FM-112), 31A (FM-121), 35/36 (FM-019), 35A/36A FC-200 (FM-102), 35A/36A FC-530 (FM-108), 55 (FM-103), 55B (FM-110), 55C (FM-114). 23 airplanes TFM 98-01 May 11, 1999 23 (FM-003). 23 airplanes TFM 98-02 May 11, 1999 23 (FM-003). Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(i)You must use the applicable service information identified in Tables 3 and 4 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (Only page 1 of Learjet Temporary Flight Manual Change TFM 96-08, dated May 30, 1996; and Learjet Temporary Flight Manual Change TFM 96-09, dated May 30, 1996; contain the document date, no other pages of the document contain this information.) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call

(202)741-6030, or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.* Table 3.—Service Bulletins Incorporated by Reference Bombardier service bulletin Revision level Date SB 23-28-6 Original Issue April 21, 1998. SB 24/25-28-3 2 February 21, 1998. SB 28/29-28-4 3 June 2, 1999. SB 31-28-7 3 January 26, 2001. SB 35/36-28-11 4 December 4, 2000. SB 55-28-13 3 December 15, 2000. Table 4.—Temporary Changes Incorporated by Reference Learjet Temporary Flight Manual

(TFM)change Date To the Learjet Airplane Flight Manual TFM 96-08 May 30, 1996 24 (FM-004), 24B (FM-006), 24D (FM-009), 24E (FM-011), 24F (FM-012), 24 ECR 736 (FM-008), 25 (FM-014), 25B/C (FM-016), 25D/F (FM-018), 28/29 (FM-100), 31 (FM-112), 31A (FM-121), 35/36 (FM-019), 35A/36A FC-200 (FM-102), 35A/36A FC-530 (FM-108), 55 (FM-103), 55B (FM-110), 55C (FM-114) TFM 96-09 May 30, 1996 24 (FM-004), 24B (FM-006), 24D (FM-009), 24E (FM-011), 24F (FM-012), 24 ECR 736 (FM-008), 25 (FM-014), 25B/C (FM-016), 25D/F (FM-018), 28/29 (FM-100), 31 (FM-112), 31A (FM-121), 35/36 (FM-019), 35A/36A FC-200 (FM-102), 35A/36A FC-530 (FM-108), 55 (FM-103), 55B (FM-110), 55C (FM-114) TFM 98-01 May 11, 1999 23 (FM-003) TFM 98-02 May 11, 1999 23 (FM-003) Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 6, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2640 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-20351; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-269-AD; Amendment 39-14948; AD 2007-04-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump for the presence of a pump shaft flame arrestor, and if the flame arrestor is missing, replacement of that pump with a pump having a pump shaft flame arrestor. This AD also requires repetitive measurements of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires the replacement of the pump with a new or modified pump, which ends the repetitive measurements. This AD results from reports that certain fuel boost pumps may not have flame arrestors installed in the pump shaft and reports that the pin that holds the flame arrestor in place can break due to metal fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent the possible migration of a flame from a main tank fuel boost pump inlet to the vapor space of that fuel tank, and consequent ignition of fuel vapors, which could result in a fire or explosion. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)917-6497; fax

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 6, 2006 (71 FR 38304). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require an inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump for the presence of a pump shaft flame arrestor, and if the flame arrestor is missing, replacement of that pump with a pump having a pump shaft flame arrestor. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require repetitive measurements of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and corrective actions if necessary. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require the replacement of the pump with a new or modified pump, which ends the repetitive measurements. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request for Clarification of Replacement Requirement The Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America, on behalf of one of its member operators, Delta Air Lines, requests that we explain why we propose to require replacing the pump shaft without including the option of replacing the shaft pin or periodically inspecting the pin. Delta states that replacing the entire shaft would be at a considerable cost and that a more cost-effective solution would be to develop a pin replacement repair. We acknowledge that it may be possible to develop a more cost-effective solution than the replacement specified in this AD. However, the manufacturer has developed only a single design solution (replacement of the pump shaft) to fully address the identified unsafe condition specified in this AD. We have mandated this terminating action because we can better ensure long-term continued operational safety by design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. We also recognize that alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that meet the intent of this AD may also exist; operators may request an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(l)of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Request To Remove Terminating Action Requirement Delta Air Lines requests that we do not mandate the terminating action specified in paragraph

(i)of the supplemental NPRM that would require replacing the pump within 36 months. Delta Air Lines states that if the 6,000-flight-hour or 24-month repetitive interval specified in paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of the supplemental NPRM provide an acceptable level of safety, then the repetitive interval should be adequate until an operator can schedule the terminating action specified in paragraph

(i)of the supplemental NPRM, if desired. We do not agree to remove the requirement to do the terminating action specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. We can better ensure long-term continued operational safety by modifications or design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections/testing. Long-term inspections/testing may not provide the degree of safety necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, coupled with a better understanding of the human factors associated with numerous repetitive inspections, has led us to consider placing less emphasis on special procedures and more emphasis on design improvements. We developed the 36-month compliance time for the replacement in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. However, according to the procedures specified in paragraph

(l)of this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Request To Coordinate With Pending Related Actions ATA, on behalf of one its member operators, Delta Air Lines, requests that the supplemental NPRM be coordinated with any action that may be pending to address the fuel pump feed-through connector in order to avoid more pump removals than are required to accomplish both actions. Delta Air Lines believes that Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 and 767-28A0096, both dated September 15, 2005, which address the fuel pump feed-through connector, could be done concurrently with this supplemental NPRM. We acknowledge that coordinating the actions in this AD with the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 and 767-28A0096 may reduce the number of pump removals. However, we have not yet issued any AD rulemaking related to those service bulletins, and to delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and the requirements of this AD must be done to ensure continued operational safety. We are considering AD rulemaking related to Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 and 767-28A0096, and we are also considering how the compliance times specified in this AD will fit with the compliance times of that future rulemaking. Operators should note that it is always permitted to accomplish the requirements of any AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Request To Add Phrase to Unsafe Condition Statement Boeing requests that the phrase “should the pump inlets become uncovered” be added to paragraph

(d)of the supplemental NPRM. The commenter notes that the phrase was removed by the FAA in the supplemental NPRM because the FAA stated that “the pump inlet does not need to be uncovered for ignited vapors in the pump to cause a tank explosion.” The commenter contends that the fuel pump inlets being covered in fuel mitigates the unsafe condition because when the fuel pump inlets are covered, the inlets and pump cavity are full of liquid fuel in which no flame front could develop. We acknowledge the need for clarification of the unsafe condition statement. We acknowledge that operation of a fuel pump with its inlet below the surface of the fuel in the tank ensures that the ignition risk addressed by this AD is eliminated for the majority of the time the pump operates. However, ground fuel transfer conditions can lead to dry operation of the fuel pump. After the pump inlet is again covered by fuel by the addition of fuel to the tank, the pump operates for a brief period of time until it is re-primed. During this period of operation with the inlet covered by fuel, there is still some risk of a tank ignition event if an ignition source generating failure occurs within a pump with a missing flame arrestor. Therefore, we have not revised this AD in this regard. Request To Incorporate Service Information The Modification and Replacement of Parts Association (MARPA) states that typically ADs are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA also states that manufacturer's service documents are privately authored instruments generally enjoying copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA contends that when a service document is incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into a public document such as an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes itself a public document. MARPA explains that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document. MARPA states that public laws by definition must be public which means they cannot rely for compliance upon private writings. MARPA is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA also states that incorporation by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System

(DMS)keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA explains that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method of the **Federal Register** is brevity; to keep from expanding the **Federal Register** needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected individuals. MARPA notes that traditionally, “affected individuals” has meant aircraft owners and operators who are generally provided service information by the manufacturer. However, MARPA states 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. MARPA states that this new class includes maintenance and repair organizations (MRO), component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors and distributors and organizations manufacturing or servicing alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303). Further, MARPA states that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper. We acknowledge that the Office of the Federal Register

(MCAI)(issued by an aviation authority of another country) that require replacement or installation of certain parts, the Order allows for replacement of parts approved under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303) based on a finding of identicality in the FAA's AD. The commenter notes that the supplemental NPRM is not from an MCAI but believes that the principles of the order should be universal. We do not agree. The supplemental NPRM did not address parts manufacturer approval

(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 and does not apply to domestic ADs. Therefore, we have not revised the AD in this regard. Request To Address the Use of PMA Parts The same commenter also requests that we revise the way we address the use of PMA parts in the supplemental NPRM. • The commenter requests that the language in the supplemental NPRM be changed to permit installation of PMA equivalent parts. The commenter states that the mandated installation of a certain part number in the NPRM “is at variance with the higher authority of 14 CFR Section 21.303.” The commenter notes that only safety issues can be addressed in airworthiness directives as set forth in Title 49 and “the prima facia invalidation of FAR 21.303” by AD action is an economic issue not within purview of the AD. • The commenter contends that it is illogical to require an operator to request approval of an AMOC in order to install an “equivalent” PMA part. • The commenter also requests that the supplemental NPRM be revised to cover possible defective PMA alternative parts so that those defective PMA parts also are subject to the supplemental NPRM. • The commenter also points out that ADs issued by directorates other than the Transport Airplane Directorate contain wording that address PMA parts and requests that we use the wording specified in an AD from the Small Airplane Directorate. The commenter notes that because the supplemental NPRM differs markedly in the treatment of this issue, the mandates contained in Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866 are not being met. We recognize the need for standardization on this issue and currently are in the process of reviewing such issues that address the use of PMAs in ADs at the national level. 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, we have not revised the AD in this regard. Clarification of Compliance Time Paragraph (f)(2) of the supplemental NPRM specifies a compliance time of “within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours.” We have revised the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD to “within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours or within 24 months after performing the initial inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, whichever occurs later.” We made this change in order to give airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(2) that reach 15,000 total flight hours shortly after performing the initial inspection required by paragraph

(f)a similar compliance time of 24 months after performing the initial inspection that is specified for airplanes in paragraphs (f)(1) and

(g)of this AD. We considered the safety issues and the recommendations of the manufacturer and have determined that a 24-month interval after performing the initial inspection will ensure an acceptable level of safety. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 915 airplanes worldwide, and 400 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Inspection of flame arrestor presence/position 5 $80 None $400, per inspection cycle $160,000, per inspection cycle. Replacement 3 80 $25,004 $25,244 1 $10,097,600. 1 The parts manufacturer states that it may cover the cost of replacement parts associated with this AD for certain affected airplanes, subject to warranty conditions. As a result, the costs attributable to this AD may be less than stated above. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-04-16 Boeing:** Amendment 39-14948. Docket No. FAA-2005-20351; Directorate Identifier 2003-NM-269-AD. Effective Date

(a)This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports that certain fuel boost pumps may not have flame arrestors installed in the pump shaft and reports that the pin that holds the flame arrestor in place can break due to metal fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent the possible migration of a flame from a main tank fuel boost pump inlet to the vapor space of that fuel tank, and consequent ignition of fuel vapors, which could result in a fire or explosion. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspection for Presence/Position of Flame Arrestor in Main Tank Fuel Boost Pumps

(f)For airplanes having line numbers (L/Ns) 1 through 914 inclusive, except as provided by paragraph

(h)of this AD: Within 365 days after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump to determine if the pump shaft flame arrestor is installed, a measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 8, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, until the replacement required by paragraph

(i)of this AD is accomplished. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Note 1: Any inspection/measurement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that the actions are done on all pumps within the compliance time specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD.

(1)For airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours as of the date the initial actions are done in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD: Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first.

(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 15,000 total flight hours or fewer as of the date the initial actions are done in accordance with paragraph

(f)of this AD: Do the measurement specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours or within 24 months after performing the initial inspection required by paragraph

(f)of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first. Note 2: Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0077 and 767-28A0081 reference Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-2, dated October 25, 2002, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the inspection and corrective actions. Although the Hamilton Sundstrand service bulletin specifies to return main tank fuel boost pumps with damaged, broken, or out-of-position flame arrestors to a repair shop, that action is not required by this AD. Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”

(g)For airplanes having L/Ns 915 and on, except as provided by paragraph

(h)of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump to determine if the pump shaft flame arrestor is installed, a measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 8, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first, until the replacement required by paragraph

(i)of this AD is accomplished. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Note 4: Any inspection/measurement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that the actions are done on all pumps within the compliance time specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD.

(1)For airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions within 365 days after the effective date of this AD.

(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 15,000 total flight hours or fewer as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours. Optional Terminating Action—Records Review

(h)For any period when the part number (P/N) of a main tank fuel boost pump installed on any airplane, as conclusively determined from a review of airplane maintenance records, is P/N 5006003D, no further action is required by paragraphs (f), (g), and

(i)of this AD for that pump only. Replacement of the Main Tank Fuel Boost Pumps

(i)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right main tank fuel boost pumps with new or modified pumps in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0088 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0089 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both dated February 24, 2005, as applicable. Accomplishment of the replacement terminates the repetitive measurement requirements of paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this AD for that pump only. Note 5: Any replacement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that all pumps are replaced within the compliance time specified in paragraph

(i)of this AD. Note 6: Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089 reference Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-3, dated December 8, 2004, as the appropriate source of service information for modifying the pump. Inspections Accomplished According to Previous Issue of Service Bulletin

(j)Inspections accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077, dated March 6, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081, dated March 6, 2003; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this AD. Parts Installation

(k)As of the effective date of this AD, only main tank fuel boost pumps identified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD may be installed on any airplane.

(1)Any main tank fuel boost pump that has been inspected, and on which all applicable corrective actions have been performed, in accordance with paragraph

(f)or

(g)of this AD.

(2)Any main tank fuel boost pump having P/N 5006003D. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(m)You must use the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Boeing alert service bulletin Revision level Date 767-28A0077 1 July 8, 2004. 767-28A0081 1 July 8, 2004. 767-28A0088 Original February 24, 2005. 767-28A0089 Original February 24, 2005. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-2644 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26235; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-65-AD; Amendment 39-14945; AD 2007-04-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This 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 cracks found on several main landing gear cylinders. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The 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 AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 22, 2006 (71 FR 76950). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states reports of cracks found on several main landing gear

(MLG)cylinders. If not detected and corrected, fatigue cracks in the shock strut cylinder of the MLG could result in a collapsed MLG during takeoff or landing, and possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane. The MCAI requires inspecting the MLG forging body for cracks and repairing any cracks found. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Comment Issue No. 1: Change the Required Parts Cost in the Compliance Section EADS SOCATA comments the cost for the parts required to do the actions in the proposed AD are totally out of proportion. EADS SOCATA states the application of SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, requires only two cotter pins and this cost is negligible. The proposed AD states it will take approximately $125,600 to comply with the AD. In our cost estimate, we grouped all actions required to comply with the AD, including replacement of any MLG found cracked. We have since learned from EADS SOCATA that labor and parts costs for any cracked MLG will be provided under warranty. We will modify the Costs of Compliance section to reflect the 3 work-hours to do the inspection and the warranty coverage for the replacement MLG. Comment Issue No. 2: Change the Number of Work-Hours in the Compliance Section EADS SOCATA comments they have established, by applying the service bulletin, it takes 2 work-hours per product to perform an eddy current inspection, and it takes 3 work-hours per product to perform a dye penetrant or fluorescent penetrant inspection. The proposed AD states it will take approximately 18 work-hours to comply with the AD. In our cost estimate, we grouped all actions required to comply with the AD, including replacement of any MLG found cracked. We have since learned from EADS SOCATA that labor and parts costs for any cracked MLG will be provided under warranty. We will modify the Costs of Compliance section to reflect the 3 work-hours to do the inspection and the warranty coverage for the replacement MLG. Comment Issue No. 3: Change the Compliance Time EADS SOCATA comments that SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, specifies for MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500 landings to inspect the forging body within 25 landings after issuance of the service bulletin. However, the proposed AD lowers the limit to 3,475 landings. EADS SOCATA states the limit of 3,500 landings was established by analysis considering all necessary margins. EADS SOCATA requests the FAA change paragraph (e)(2) to read, “For MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500 landings:” or explain the reason for the difference in the FAA AD Differences section. After evaluating the service bulletin further, we agree with the language presented by the commenter. We will change the final rule AD action based on this comment. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. 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 a U.S. court of law. 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 required 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 AD. These requirements, if any, take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 272 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements (inspection) of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the basic requirements of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $65,280, or $240 per product. In addition, follow-on actions (possible MLG replacement) would be covered by EADS SOCATA under warranty (both parts and labor). We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that would need this action. 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. 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 the NPRM, 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-04-13 EADS SOCATA:** Amendment 39-14945; Docket No. FAA-2006-26235; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-65-AD. Effective Date

(a)This airworthiness directive

(AD)becomes effective March 23, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 9999, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states reports of cracks found on several main landing gear

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1)As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 1,750 landings but less than 3,501 landings since new:

(i)Inspect the forging body for cracks within 100 landings after March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006.

(ii)If no cracks are detected, repetitively inspect thereafter every 175 landings.

(2)As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500 landings since new:

(i)Inspect the forging body for cracks within 25 landings after March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006.

(ii)If no cracks are detected, repetitively inspect thereafter every 175 landings.

(3)If any cracks are detected during any inspection required in paragraph

(e)of this AD:

(i)Before further flight, remove the affected landing gear leg and confirm the presence of the crack with dye penetrant inspection or fluorescent penetrant inspection.

(ii)If the crack is confirmed, before further flight, contact EADS SOCATA to coordinate the landing gear repair/replacement and then conform to any instruction stated by EADS SOCATA.

(4)If you do not know the number of landings, follow the instructions in the Compliance section of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), 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

(EASA)AD No. 2006-0085, dated April 12, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference

(h)You must use EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 (0)5 62.41.73.00; fax: 33 (0)5 62.41.76.54.

(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 8, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 07-670 Filed 2-15-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 26

Traces to 26 documents

CFR