Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

22,210 words·~101 min read·/register/2007/02/26/07-857

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

BILLING CODE 3510-21-S 72 37 Monday, February 26, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 381 [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0030] RIN 0583-AD25 Eligibility of Chile To Export Poultry and Poultry Products to the United States AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS)is proposing to add Chile to the list of countries eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States. Reviews by FSIS of Chile's laws, regulations, and inspection implementation show that its poultry inspection system requirements are equivalent to the relevant provisions of the Poultry Products Inspection Act

(PPIA)and its implementing regulations. Under this proposal, poultry and poultry products processed in certified Chilean establishments may be exported to the United States. All such products will be subject to re-inspection at United States ports-of-entry by FSIS inspectors. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2006-0030 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. *Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand-or courier-delivered items:* Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250. *Electronic mail: fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov* . All submissions received by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2006-0030. All comments submitted in response to this proposal, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Comments will also be posted on the Agency's Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2006_Proposed_Rules_Index/index* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sally White, Director, International Equivalence Staff, Office of International Affairs;

(202)720-6400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS)is proposing to amend its poultry products inspection regulations to add Chile to the list of countries eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States (9 CFR 381.196). Chile is not currently listed as eligible to export such products to the United States. Statutory Basis for Proposed Action Section 17 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 466) prohibits importation into the United States of slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, of any kind unless they are healthful, wholesome, fit for human food, not adulterated, and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient that renders them unhealthful, unwholesome, adulterated, or unfit for human food. Under the PPIA and the regulations that implement it, poultry products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States. Section 381.196 of Title 9 of the CFR sets out the procedures by which foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States may become eligible to do so. Section 381.196(a) provides that a foreign country's poultry inspection system must include standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations must also be equivalent to those of the United States. Specifically, a country's regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to:

(1)Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection;

(2)official controls by the national government over plant construction, facilities, and equipment;

(3)direct and continuous supervision of slaughter activities, where applicable, and product preparation by official inspection personnel;

(4)separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified;

(5)maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; and

(6)official controls over condemned product. The foreign country's inspection system must ensure that establishments preparing poultry or poultry products for export to the United States, and their products, comply with requirements equivalent to those of the PPIA and the regulations promulgated by FSIS under the authority of that statute. The foreign country certifies the appropriate establishments as having met the required standards. The country must satisfy FSIS that the certifications it issues are reliable before FSIS will grant approval to the country to export poultry or poultry products to the United States (9 CFR 381.196). To assess the reliability of the foreign country's certifications, FSIS evaluates the country's inspection system and performs ongoing reviews of that system. To ensure that products imported into the United States are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled and packaged, FSIS randomly re-inspects and samples those products before they enter the United States. In addition to meeting the certification requirements, a foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export poultry or poultry products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: a document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. To help the country in organizing its material, FSIS gives the country questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures in five risk areas. These five risk areas, which are the focus of the evaluation, are sanitation, animal disease, slaughter/processing, residues, and enforcement. FSIS evaluates the information to verify that the critical points in the five risk areas are addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement. If the document review is satisfactory, an on-site review is scheduled using a multi-disciplinary team to evaluate all aspects of the country's inspection program, including laboratories and individual establishments within the country. The process of determining equivalence is described fully on the FSIS Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/equivalence_process/index.asp* . The PPIA and the regulations that implement it require that foreign countries be listed as eligible in the Code of Federal Regulations. FSIS must do rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export poultry or poultry products into the United States are listed in the poultry inspection regulations at 9 CFR 381.196(b). Once listed, it is the responsibility of the eligible country to certify that establishments meet the requirements to export poultry or poultry products to the United States, and to ensure that products from these establishments are safe, wholesome, and not misbranded. Evaluation of the Chilean Inspection System for Poultry and Poultry Products In response to a request from Chile for approval to export poultry and poultry products to the United States, FSIS conducted a review of Chile's poultry slaughter inspection system to determine whether it is equivalent to the U.S. poultry inspection system. First, FSIS compared Chile's poultry inspection laws and regulations with U.S. requirements. The Agency concluded that the requirements contained in Chile's poultry slaughter inspection laws and regulations are equivalent to the PPIA and to the regulations that FSIS has adopted under the PPIA to effect that statute. FSIS then conducted two on-site reviews of Chile's poultry slaughter inspection system in operation. The FSIS review team concluded that, as implemented, Chile's poultry slaughter standards and procedures are equivalent to those of the United States. The full report on Chile's poultry slaughter inspection system can be found on the FSIS Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/foreign_audit_reports/index.asp* . As a country eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States, the government of Chile must certify to FSIS those establishments that wish to export such products to the United States and that operate in accordance with these requirements. FSIS will retain the right to verify that the establishments certified by Chile's government are meeting the U.S. requirements. This verification will be done through annual reviews of the establishments while they are in operation. Although a foreign country may be listed as eligible to export poultry to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations, which also regulate the exportation of meat or poultry products from foreign countries to the United States. If this proposed rule is adopted, any poultry and poultry products exported to the United States from Chile will be subject to re-inspection at the ports-of-entry for transportation damage, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. FSIS will also conduct other types of inspection, including examination of products for defects and sampling and laboratory analysis of products for chemical residues or for microbiological contamination. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official United States mark of inspection and allowed to enter U.S. commerce. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they will be refused entry and must be re-exported, destroyed, or converted to animal food. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. The proposed rulemaking would add Chile to the list of countries eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States. Economic Impact Analysis This rule was designated as non-significant. It is expected that approximately five establishments in Chile will be exporting poultry and poultry products to the U.S. Chile expects to export raw young chicken breast (de-boned) products, starting in 2007 with 5,000 Metric Tons

(MT)and reaching an estimated 12,000 MT in 2010. These estimates are based on Chile's actual and future production capacity and its decision to maintain an increasing presence in the export market. For comparison, FSIS estimated, based on data from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), that in 2005 the U.S. produced about 1,444,000 MT of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products. Chile's estimated initial exports to the U.S. in 2007 should represent about three-tenths of one percent (5,000 MT/1,444,000 MT) of the U.S. domestic production of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products, in 2005. Further, if Chile's exports to the U.S. reach, in 2010, the estimate of 12,000 MT of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products, these imports will represent about eight-tenths of one percent (12,000 MT/1,444,000 MT) of the U.S. domestic production of raw young chicken breast (deboned) products in 2005. The impact of this proposed rule on U.S. consumers is voluntary in that consumers will not be required to purchase poultry or poultry products produced and processed in Chile. Expected benefits from this type of proposed rule would accrue primarily to consumers in the form of lower prices. The small volume of trade stimulated by this proposed rule, however, will likely have little effect on supply and prices. Consumers, apart from any change in prices, would benefit in principle from increased choices at competitive price points in the marketplace. The costs of this rule will accrue primarily to U.S. producers in the form of greater competition from Chile. Again, it must be noted that the volume of trade stimulated by this rule would be very small, likely having little discernible effect on supply and prices. General benefits would include increased trade with Chile and the availability to U.S. consumers of a greater quantity of poultry and poultry products. Both nations would benefit from an expansion of trade in poultry and poultry products as part of a wide range of commodities. Constraints on the expansion of trade in poultry and poultry products between the United States and Chile are expected to occur mainly in the form of restrictions imposed under U.S. animal health laws. APHIS has agreed to supply FSIS with evaluations and current updates of the animal disease status of regions in Chile where establishments likely to export poultry and poultry product to the United States are located. The additional poultry and poultry product shipments are likely to have only a slight effect on the Agency's assignment of import inspection resources at points of entry on the East and West coasts. It is unlikely, on the basis of current information, that any additional import inspection personnel would need to be hired. Estimates of benefits and costs of increased trade in poultry and poultry products with Chile are based on data supplied by the FSIS Office of International Affairs and Office of Field Operations; Foreign Agricultural Service

(FAS)databases and trade reports; Economic Research Service

(ERS)databases, reports, and analyses; Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS)databases, reports, and analyses; National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)databases, reports, and analyses; and Census Bureau databases and reports. Standard economic analytical techniques were used in estimating effects of the proposed rulemakings. The major source of uncertainty in estimating the effects of this proposed rule is in forecasting the number of establishments likely to be certified by Chile to export poultry and poultry products to the United States. Other, less important, sources of uncertainty include imprecision in the economic data consulted, e.g., estimates of demand and supply elasticities and probable errors in multi-year forecasts of prices for the poultry and poultry product commodities that would be regulated under the proposed rule. Effect on Small Entities The FSIS Administrator has made an initial determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). This proposed rule would add Chile to the list of countries eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States. The volume of trade stimulated by this rule would be very small and would have minimal effect on poultry and poultry products supplies and prices. Therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities that produce these types of poultry and poultry products domestically. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:

(1)all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted;

(2)no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and

(3)administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Requirements No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection systems effect standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the systems and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS collects this information one time only. FSIS gave Chile questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB number 0583-0094. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements. Government Paperwork Elimination Act

(GPEA)FSIS is committed to compliance with the GPEA, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of communicating electronically with the government to the maximum extent possible. The Agency will ensure that all forms used by the establishments are made available electronically. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this proposed rule, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2006_Proposed_Rules_Index/index.asp* . The Regulations.gov Web site is the central online rulemaking portal of the United States government. It is being offered as a public service to increase participation in the Federal government's regulatory activities. FSIS participates in Regulations.gov and will accept comments on documents published on the site. The site allows visitors to search by keyword or Department or Agency for rulemakings that allow for public comment. Each entry provides a quick link to a comment form so that visitors can type in their comments and submit them to FSIS. The Web site is located at *http://www.regulations.gov/.* FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service that provides an automatic and customized notification when popular pages are updated, including **Federal Register** publications and related documents. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* and allows FSIS customers to sign up for subscription options across eight categories. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 381 Imported products. For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 381 as follows: PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53. § 381.196 [Amended] 1. Section 381.196 is amended in paragraph

(b)by adding Chile in alphabetical order to the list of countries. Done at Washington, DC, on February 20, 2007. Bryce Quick, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-3155 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM370; Notice No. 25-07-06-SC] Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X Airplane; Side Stick Controllers, Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal Stability, Low Energy Awareness, Flight Control Surface Position Awareness, and Flight Characteristics Compliance via the Handling Qualities Rating Method; Flight Envelope Protection: General Limiting Requirements, High Incidence Protection Function, Normal Load Factor

(g)Limiting, and Pitch, Roll, and High Speed Limiting Functions AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features include side stick controllers, electronic flight control systems, and flight envelope protections. These special conditions pertain to control and handling qualities of the airplane and protection limits within the normal flight envelope. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplanes. DATES: We must receive your comments by March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM370, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356. You may deliver two copies to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. *You must mark your comments:* Docket No. NM370. You can inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2011; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On June 4, 2002, Dassault Aviation, 9 rond Point des Champs Elysees, 75008, Paris, France, applied for FAA type certificate for its new Model Falcon 7X airplane. The Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane is a 19 passenger transport category airplane powered by three aft mounted Pratt & Whitney PW307A high bypass ratio turbofan engines. Maximum takeoff weight will be 63,700 pounds, and maximum certified altitude will be 51,000 feet with a range of 5,700 nautical miles. The airplane is operated using a fly-by-wire

(FBW)primary flight control system. This will be the first application of a FBW primary flight control system in an airplane primarily intended for private/corporate use. The Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X design incorporates equipment that was not envisioned when part 25 was created. This equipment includes side stick controllers, and an electronic flight control system that provides flight envelope protection. Therefore, special conditions are required that provide the level of safety equivalent to that established by the regulations. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show that the Model Falcon 7X airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-108. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 7X airplane because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 93-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features *The Dassault Falcon 7X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:* • Side stick controllers; • *Electronic flight control system:* lateral-directional and longitudinal stability, low energy awareness, • *Electronic flight control system:* flight control surface position awareness, • *Electronic flight control system:* flight characteristics compliance via the handling qualities rating method (HQRM); • *Flight envelope protection:* general limiting requirements, • *Flight envelope protection:* high incidence protection function, • *Flight envelope protection:* normal load factor

(g)limiting, • *Flight envelope protection:* pitch, roll, and high speed limiting functions. Because of these rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These proposed special conditions address equipment which may affect the airplane's structural performance, either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction. These proposed special conditions are identical or nearly identical to those previously required for type certification of other airplane models. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane. Those additional special conditions will pertain to the following topics: • Dive speed definition with speed protection system, • Sudden engine stoppage, and • Operation without normal electrical power. Final special conditions have been issued for the Model Falcon 7X with the novel or unusual design feature pertaining to Pilot Compartment View-Hydrophobic Coatings in Lieu of Windshield Wipers (January 10, 2007; 72 FR 1135). Special conditions have been proposed for the Model Falcon 7X with the novel or unusual design features pertaining to Interaction of Systems and Structures, Limit Pilot Forces, and High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)(October 18, 2006; 71 FR 61427). Discussion Because of these rapid improvements in airplane technology, the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. Therefore, in addition to the requirement of part 25, subparts C and D, the following special conditions are proposed. Proposed Special Condition No. 1. Side Stick Controllers The Falcon 7X will use side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. Regulatory requirements for conventional wheel and column controllers, such as requirements pertaining to pilot strength and controllability, are not directly applicable to side stick controllers. Certain ergonomic considerations such as armrest support, freedom of arm movement, controller displacement, handgrip size and accommodations for a range of pilot sizes are not addressed in the regulations. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain, because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls. Pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other. These proposed special conditions require that the unique features of the side stick must be demonstrated through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handling and control characteristics. Proposed Special Condition No. 2. Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional Stability, Longitudinal Stability, and Low Energy Awareness In lieu of compliance with the regulations pertaining to lateral-directional and longitudinal stability, these special conditions ensure that the Model Falcon 7X will have suitable airplane handling qualities throughout the normal flight envelope. The unique features of the Model Falcon 7X flight control system and side-stick controllers, when compared with conventional airplanes with wheel and column controllers, do not provide conventional awareness to the flightcrew of a change in speed or a change in the direction of flight. These special conditions require that adequate awareness be provided to the pilot of a low energy state (low speed, low thrust, and low altitude) below normal operating speeds. a. *Lateral-directional Static Stability:* The electronic flight control system

(EFCS)on the Falcon 7X contains fly-by-wire control laws that result in neutral lateral-directional static stability. Therefore, the conventional requirements of the regulations are not met. The Model Falcon 7X airplane has a flight control design feature within the normal operational envelope in which side stick deflection in the roll axis commands roll rate. As a result, the stick force in the roll axis will be zero (neutral stability) during the straight, steady sideslip flight maneuver of § 25.177(c) and will not be “substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip,” as required by the regulation. With conventional control system requirements, positive static directional stability is defined as the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free. Positive static lateral stability is defined as the tendency to raise the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free. These proposed special conditions are intended to accomplish the following: • Provide additional cues of inadvertent sideslips and skids through control force changes. • Ensure that short periods of unattended operation do not result in any significant changes in yaw or bank angle. • Provide predictable roll and yaw response. • Provide acceptable level of pilot attention (i.e., workload) to attain and maintain a coordinated turn. b. *Longitudinal Static Stability:* The longitudinal flight control laws for the Falcon 7X provide neutral static stability within the normal operational envelope. Therefore, it is inappropriate to require the airplane design to comply with the static longitudinal stability requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, and 25.175. Static longitudinal stability on conventional airplanes with mechanical links to the pitch control surface means that a pull force on the controller will result in a reduction in speed relative to the trim speed, and a push force will result in higher than trim speed. Longitudinal stability is required by the regulations for the following reasons: • Speed change cues are provided to the pilot through increased and decreased forces on the controller. • Short periods of unattended control of the airplane do not result in significant changes in attitude, airspeed, or load factor. • A predictable pitch response is provided to the pilot. • An acceptable level of pilot attention (i.e., workload) to attain and maintain trim speed and altitude is provided to the pilot. • Longitudinal stability provides gust stability. The pitch control movement of the side stick is a normal load factor or “g” command which results in an initial movement of the elevator surface to attain the commanded load factor. That movement is followed by integrated movement of the stabilizer and elevator to automatically trim the airplane to a neutral

(1g)stick-free stability. The flight path commanded by the initial side stick input will remain stick-free until the pilot gives another command. This control function is applied during “normal” control law within the speed range from the speed at the angle of attack protection limit to initiation of the angle of attack protection limit. Once outside this speed range, the control laws introduce the conventional longitudinal static stability as described above. As a result of neutral static stability, the Falcon 7X does not meet the part 25 requirements for static longitudinal stability. It would not be appropriate to apply the conventional part 25 requirements for static longitudinal stability to the unconventional control systems of the Falcon 7X. These proposed special conditions would require that the airplane be shown to have suitable static longitudinal stability in any condition normally encountered in service. c. *Low Energy Awareness:* Static longitudinal stability provides an awareness to the flightcrew of a low energy state (low speed and thrust at low altitude). Past experience on airplanes fitted with a flight control system which provides neutral longitudinal stability shows there are insufficient feedback cues to the pilot of excursion below normal operational speeds. The maximum angle of attack protection system limits the airplane angle of attack and prevents stall during normal operating speeds, but this system is not sufficient to prevent stall at low speed excursions below normal operational speeds. Until intervention, there are no stability cues because the airplane remains trimmed. Additionally, feedback from the pitching moment due to thrust variation is reduced by the flight control laws. Recovery from a low speed excursion may become hazardous when the low speed is associated with low altitude and the engines are operating at low thrust or with other performance limiting conditions. Because § 25.173 requires that the pilot receive speed change cues through increased or decreased forces on the controller, it would be inappropriate to apply those requirements for feedback cues to the Falcon Model 7X systems. These proposed special conditions would require that the airplane provide adequate awareness of a low energy state to the pilot. Proposed Special Condition No. 3. Electronic Flight Control System: Flight Control Surface Position Awareness With a response-command type of flight control system and no direct mechanical coupling from cockpit controller to control surface, the controller does not provide the Falcon 7X pilot with an awareness of the actual surface deflection position during flight maneuvers. Some unusual flight conditions, arising from atmospheric conditions or airplane or engine failures or both, may result in full or nearly full surface deflection. Unless the flightcrew is made aware of excessive deflection or impending control surface deflection limiting, the pilot or auto-flight system may encounter situations where loss of control or other unsafe handling or performance characteristics occur. These special conditions would require that suitable annunciation be provided to the flightcrew when a flight condition exists in which nearly full control surface deflection occurs. Suitability of such a display must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers (e.g., rapid roll) are necessarily associated with intended full or nearly full control surface deflection. Therefore, simple alerting systems which would function in both intended or unexpected control-limiting situations must be properly balanced between needed crew awareness and nuisance warnings. Proposed Special Condition No. 4. Electronic Flight Control System: Flight Characteristics Compliance Via the Handling Qualities Rating Method

(HQRM)The Model Falcon 7X airplane will have an electronic flight control system (EFCS). This system provides an electronic interface between the pilot's flight controls and the flight control surfaces (for both normal and failure states). The system also generates the actual surface commands that provide for stability augmentation and control about all three airplane axes. Because EFCS technology has outpaced existing regulations—written essentially for unaugmented airplanes with provision for limited ON/OFF augmentation—suitable special conditions and a method of compliance are required to aid in the certification of flight characteristics. These special conditions and the method of compliance presented in Appendix 7, FAA Handling Qualities Rating Method, of AC 25-7A, Flight Test Guide Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, would provide a means to evaluate flight characteristics—for example, “satisfactory,” “adequate,” or “controllable”—to determine compliance with the regulations. The HQRM in Appendix 7 was developed for airplanes with control systems having similar functions and is employed to aid in the evaluation of the following: • All EFCS/airplane failure states not shown to be extremely improbable and where the envelope

(task)and atmospheric disturbance probabilities are each 1. • All combinations of failures, atmospheric disturbance level, and flight envelope not shown to be extremely improbable. • Any other flight condition or characteristic where 14 CFR part 25 proves to be inadequate for proper assessment of unique Falcon Model 7X flight characteristics. The Handling Qualities Rating Method provides a systematic approach to the assessment of handling qualities. It is not intended to dictate program size or need for a fixed number of pilots to achieve multiple opinions. The airplane design itself and success in defining critical failure combinations from the many reviewed in Systems Safety Assessments would dictate the scope of any HQRM application. Handling qualities terms, principles, and relationships familiar to the aviation community have been used to formulate the HQRM. For example, we have established that the well-known COOPER-HARPER rating scale and the proposed FAA three-part rating system are similar. This approach on the flying qualities of highly augmented/relaxed static stability airplanes in relation to regulatory and flight test guide requirements is reported in DOT/FAA/CT-82/130, Flying Qualities of Relaxed Static Stability Aircraft, Volumes I and II. Proposed Special Condition No. 5. Flight Envelope Protection: General Limiting Requirements These special conditions and the following ones—pertaining to flight envelope protection—would present general limiting requirements for all the unique flight envelope protection features of the basic Model Falcon 7X Electronic Flight Control System

(EFCS)design. Current regulations do not address these types of protection features. The general limiting requirements are necessary to ensure a smooth transition from normal flight to the protection mode and adequate maneuver capability. The general limiting requirements also ensure that the structural limits of the airplane are not exceeded. Furthermore, failure of the protection feature must not create hazardous flight conditions. Envelope protection parameters include angle of attack, normal load factor, pitch angle, and speed. To accomplish these envelope protections, one or more significant changes occur in the EFCS control laws as the normal flight envelope limit is approached or exceeded. Each specific type of envelope protection is addressed individually in the special conditions that follow. Proposed Special Condition No. 6. Flight Envelope Protection—High Incidence Protection Function The Falcon 7X is equipped with a high incidence protection function that limits the angle of attack at which the airplane can be flown during normal low speed operation and that cannot be overridden by the flightcrew. This function prevents the airplane from stalling and therefore, the stall warning system is not needed during normal flight conditions. If there is a failure of the high incidence protection function that is not shown to be extremely improbable, the flight characteristics at the angle of attack for C LMAX must be suitable in the traditional sense, and stall warning must be provided in a conventional manner. This special condition would address these and other unique features of this function on the Model Falcon 7X. The special conditions define a MIN imum steady flight speed, V MIN , to be demonstrated during flight test, at which the airplane can develop lift normal to the flight path and equal to its weight at the angle of attack limit of the protection function. It further defines procedures for establishing the reference stall speed, V SR , to be used for defining reference speeds during takeoff and landing. In the absence of specific regulations in 14 CFR Part 25, these special conditions present High Incidence Protection Function requirements for the capability and reliability of the function, stall warning with a failure condition, handling qualities and characteristics at high incidence or angle of attack flight maneuvers, and specific applications of the newly defined V MIN in lieu of current regulations. Proposed Special Condition No. 7. Flight Envelope Protection: Normal Load Factor

(G)Limiting The Falcon 7X flight control system design incorporates a normal load factor limiting function on a full time basis that will prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the positive or negative airplane limit load factor. This limiting feature is active in the normal flight control mode and cannot be overridden by the pilot. There is no requirement in the regulations for this limiting feature. This normal load factor limit is unique in that traditional airplanes with conventional flight control systems (mechanical linkages) are limited in the pitch axis only by the elevator surface area and deflection limit. The elevator control power is normally derived for adequate controllability and maneuverability at the most critical longitudinal pitching moment. The result is that traditional airplanes have a significant portion of the flight envelope in which maneuverability in excess of limit structural design values is possible. Part 25 does not require a demonstration of maneuver control or handling qualities beyond the design limit structural loads. Nevertheless, some pilots have become accustomed to the availability of this excess maneuver capacity in case of extreme emergency, such as upset recoveries or collision avoidance. Because Dassault has chosen to include this optional design feature on the Falcon 7X, for which part 25 does not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards, special conditions pertaining to this feature are included. These special conditions would establish MIN imum load factor requirements to ensure adequate maneuver capability during normal flight. Other limiting features of the normal load factor limiting function, as discussed above, that would affect the upper load limits are not addressed in these special conditions. The phrase “in the absence of other limiting factors” has been added relative to past similar special conditions to clarify that while the main focus is on the lower load factor limits, there are other limiting factors that must be considered in the load limiting function. Proposed Special Condition No. 8. Flight Envelope Protection: Pitch, Roll, and High Speed Limiting Functions The Model Falcon 7X will incorporate pitch attitude and high speed limiting functions via the Electronic Flight Control System

(EFCS)normal operating mode. In addition, positive spiral stability and partial pitch compensation will be introduced in the lateral and pitch axes through the control laws for bank angles greater than 35 degrees. The purpose of the pitch attitude limiting function, in conjunction with the high incidence protection function, is to prevent airplane stall during low speed, high angle of attack excursions. The high speed limiting protection function prevents the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding the airplane maximum design speeds, V D /M D . Part 25 does not address such a function that would limit or modify flying qualities in the high speed region. There are no specific hard limits on the Falcon 7X for bank angle. At bank angles up to 35 degrees, side movement of the controller commands roll rate depending on the amount of deflection. Bank angle is immediately accomplished by the control law function and deflection of the control surfaces. With the stick released to its neutral point, the airplane will maintain the commanded bank angle (neutral spiral stability). Positive spiral stability is introduced at and above 35 degrees band angle such that a stick force is required to maintain bank angle, and releasing the stick will return the airplane to 35 degrees. In addition to the requirements of § 25.143, this special condition would establish requirements to ensure that pitch and high speed limiting functions do not impede normal maneuvering and that pitch and roll limiting functions do not restrict or prevent attaining bank angles necessary for emergency maneuvering. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 7X. Should Dassault Aviation apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant which applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Ad MIN istrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X airplane. 1. Side Stick Controllers In the absence of specific requirements for side stick controllers, the following special conditions apply: a. *Pilot strength:* In lieu of the “strength of pilots” limits shown in § 25.143(c) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of the specific pitch force requirements of §§ 25.145(b) and 25.175(d), it must be shown that the temporary and maximum prolonged force levels for the side stick controllers are suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations, whether normal or non-normal. b. *Pilot control authority:* The electronic side stick controller coupling design must provide for corrective and/or overriding control inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of the controller status must be provided, and must not be confusing to the flightcrew. c. *Pilot control:* It must be shown by flight tests that the use of side stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop control characteristics when considering precision path control/tasks and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other. d. *Autopilot quick-release control location:* In lieu of compliance with § 25.1329(d), autopilot quick release (emergency) controls must be on both side stick controllers. The quick release means must be located so that it can readily and easily be used by the flightcrew. 2. Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal Stability, and Low Energy Awareness In lieu of the requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, 25.175, and 25.177(c), the following special conditions apply: a. The airplane must be shown to have suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability in any condition normally encountered in service, including the effects of atmospheric disturbance. The showing of suitable static lateral, directional and longitudinal stability must be based on the airplane handling qualities, including pilot workload and pilot compensation, for specific test procedures during the flight test evaluations. b. The airplane must provide adequate awareness to the pilot of a low energy (low speed/low thrust/low height) state when fitted with flight control laws presenting neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal operating speeds. “Adequate awareness” means warning information must be provided to alert the crew of unsafe operating conditions and to enable them to take appropriate corrective action. c. The static directional stability—as shown by the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free—must be positive for any landing gear and flap position and symmetrical power condition, at speeds from 1.13 V SR1 up to V FE , V LE , or V FC /M FC (as appropriate). d. In straight, steady sideslips (unaccelerated forward slips), the rudder control movements and forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip, and the factor of proportionality must be between limits found necessary for safe operation throughout the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the operation of the airplane. At greater angles—up to the angle at which full rudder control is used or a rudder pedal force of 180 pounds (81.72 kg) is obtained—the rudder pedal forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must produce increased angles of sideslip. Unless the airplane has a suitable sideslip indication, there must be enough bank and lateral control deflection and force accompanying sideslipping to clearly indicate any departure from steady, unyawed flight. 3. Electronic Flight Control System: Flight Control Surface Position Awareness In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.143, 25.671 and 25.672, the following special conditions apply: a. A suitable flight control position annunciation must be provided to the crew in the following situation: A flight condition exists in which—without being commanded by the crew—control surfaces are coming so close to their limits that return to normal flight and

(or)continuation of safe flight requires a specific crew action. b. In lieu of control position annunciation, existing indications to the crew may be used to prompt crew action, if they are found to be adequate. Note: The term “suitable” also indicates an appropriate balance between nuisance and necessary operation. 4. Electronic Flight Control System: Flight Characteristics Compliance Via the Handling Quantities Rating Method

(HQRM)a. Flight characteristics compliance determination for electronic flight control system

(EFCS)Failure Cases: In lieu of compliance with § 25.672(c), the HQRM contained in Appendix 7, FAA Handling Qualities Rating Method, of the Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, AC 25-7A, (or an equivalent method of compliance found acceptable to the FAA), must be used for evaluation of EFCS configurations resulting from single and multiple failures not shown to be extremely improbable. The handling qualities ratings are:

(1)*Satisfactory:* Full performance criteria can be met with routine pilot effort and attention.

(2)*Adequate:* Adequate for continued safe flight and landing; full or specified reduced performance can be met, but with heightened pilot effort and attention.

(3)*Controllable:* Inadequate for continued safe flight and landing, but controllable for return to a safe flight condition, safe flight envelope and/or reconfiguration, so that the handling qualities are at least Adequate. b. Handling qualities will be allowed to progressively degrade with failure state, atmospheric disturbance level, and flight envelope, as shown in Figure 12, “Minimum HQ Requirements,” of Appendix 7. Specifically, for probable failure conditions within the normal flight envelope, the pilot-rated handling qualities must be satisfactory in light atmospheric disturbance and adequate in moderate atmospheric disturbance. The handling qualities rating must not be less than adequate in light atmospheric disturbance for improbable failures. Note: AC 25-7A, Appendix 7 presents a method of compliance and provides guidance for the following: • Minimum handling qualities rating requirements in conjunction with atmospheric disturbance levels, flight envelopes, and failure conditions (Figure 12), • Flight Envelope definition (Figures 5A, 6 and 7), • Atmospheric Disturbance Levels (Figure 5B), • Flight Control System Failure State (Figure 5C), • Combination Guidelines (Figures 5D, 9 and 10), and • General flight task list, from which appropriate specific tasks can be selected or developed (Figure 11). 5. Flight Envelope Protection: General Limiting Requirements a. *General Requirements*

(1)Onset characteristics of each envelope protection function must be smooth, appropriate to the phase of flight and type of maneuver, and not in conflict with the ability of the pilot to satisfactorily change the airplane flight path, speed, or attitude, as needed.

(2)Limit values of protected flight parameters (and if applicable, associated warning thresholds) must be compatible with the following:

(a)Airplane structural limits,

(b)Required safe and controllable maneuvering of the airplane, and

(c)Margins to critical conditions. Dynamic maneuvering, airframe and system tolerances (both manufacturing and in-service), and non-steady atmospheric conditions—in any appropriate combination and phase of flight-must not result in a limited flight—parameter beyond the nominal design limit value that would cause unsafe flight characteristics.

(3)The airplane must be responsive to intentional dynamic maneuvering to within a suitable range of the parameter limit. Dynamic characteristics, such as damping and overshoot, must also be appropriate for the flight maneuver and limit parameter in question.

(4)When simultaneous envelope limiting is engaged, adverse coupling or adverse priority must not result. b. *Failure States:* EFCS failures, including sensor failures, must not result in a condition where a parameter is limited to such a reduced value that safe and controllable maneuvering is no longer available. The crew must be alerted by suitable means, if any change in envelope limiting or maneuverability is produced by single or multiple failures of the EFCS not shown to be extremely improbable. 6. Flight Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection Function a. *Definitions.* For the purpose of this special condition, the following definitions apply: *Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS)* The electronic and software command and control elements of the flight control system. *High Incidence Protection Function* An airplane level function that automatically limits the maximum angle of attack that can be attained to a value below that at which an aerodynamic stall would occur. *Alpha Limit* The maximum angle of attack at which the airplane stabilizes with the high incidence protection function operating and the longitudinal control held on its aft stop. *V* MIN The minimum steady flight speed is the stabilized, calibrated airspeed obtained when the airplane is decelerated at an entry rate not exceeding 1 knot per second, until the longitudinal pilot control is on its stop with the high incidence protection function operating. V MIN1g V MIN corrected to 1g conditions. It is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift force normal to the flight path and equal to its weight when at an angle of attack not greater than that determined for V MIN . b. *Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection Function.*

(1)It must not be possible to encounter a stall during pilot induced maneuvers, and handling characteristics must be acceptable, as required by paragraphs e and f below, titled High Incidence Handling Demonstrations and High Incidence Handling Characteristics respectively.

(2)The airplane must be protected against stalling due to the effects of environmental conditions such as windshears and gusts at low speeds, as required by paragraph g, Atmospheric Disturbances, below.

(3)The ability of the high incidence protection function to accommodate any reduction in stalling incidence resulting from residual ice must be verified.

(4)The reliability of the function and the effects of failures must be acceptable, in accordance with § 25.1309 and Advisory Circular 25.1309-1A, System Design and Analysis.

(5)The high incidence protection function must not impede normal maneuvering for pitch angles up to the maximum required for normal maneuvering, including a normal all-engines operating takeoff plus a suitable margin to allow for satisfactory speed control. c. *Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed.* In lieu of the requirements of § 25.103, the following special conditions apply:

(1)V MIN The minimum steady flight speed, for the airplane configuration under consideration and with the high incidence protection function operating, is the final stabilized calibrated airspeed obtained when the airplane is decelerated at an entry rate not exceeding 1 knot per second until the longitudinal pilot control is on its stop.

(2)The minimum steady flight speed, V MIN , must be determined with:

(a)The high incidence protection function operating normally.

(b)Idle thrust.

(c)All combinations of flap settings and landing gear positions.

(d)The weight used when V SR is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard.

(e)The most unfavorable center of gravity allowable, and

(f)The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system.

(3)V MIN1g is V MIN corrected to 1g conditions. V MIN1g is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift force normal to the flight path and equal to its weight when at an angle of attack not greater than that determined for V MIN . V MIN1g is defined as follows: EP26FE07.018 Where: n z w = load factor normal to the flight path at V MIN

(4)The Reference Stall Speed, V SR , is a calibrated airspeed selected by the applicant. V SR may not be less than the 1g stall speed. V SR is expressed as: EP26FE07.019 Where: V CLMAX = Calibrated airspeed obtained when the load factor-corrected lift coefficient EP26FE07.020 is first a maximum during the maneuver prescribed in paragraph (5)(h) of this special condition. n zw = Load factor normal to the flight path at V CLMAX W = Airplane gross weight S = Aerodynamic reference wing area, and q = Dynamic pressure.

(5)V CLMAX must be determined with the following conditions:

(a)Engines idling or—if that resultant thrust causes an appreciable decrease in stall speed-not more than zero thrust at the stall speed

(b)The airplane in other respects, such as flaps and landing gear, in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which V SR is being used.

(c)The weight used when V SR is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard.

(d)The center of gravity position that results in the highest value of reference stall speed.

(e)The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system, but not less than 1.13 V SR and not greater than 1.3 V SR .

(f)[Reserved]

(g)The high incidence protection function adjusted to a high enough incidence to allow full development of the 1g stall.

(h)Starting from the stabilized trim condition, apply the longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed reduction does not exceed one knot per second.

(6)The flight characteristics at the angle of attack for C LMAX must be suitable in the traditional sense at FWD and AFT center of gravity in straight and turning flight at IDLE power. Although for a normal production EFCS and steady full aft stick this angle of attack for C LMAX cannot be achieved, the angle of attack can be obtained momentarily under dynamic circumstances and deliberately in a steady state sense with some EFCS failure conditions.

(7)The reference stall speed, V SR , is a calibrated airspeed defined by the applicant. If V SR is chosen equal to V MIN1g , an equivalent safety finding to the intent of § 25.103 may be considered to have been met. The applicant may choose V SR to be less than V MIN1g but not less than VS1g if compensating factors are provided to ensure safe characteristics. d. *Stall Warning.*

(1)*Normal Operation* If the conditions of paragraph b, Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection Function, of this special conditions are satisfied, a level of safety equivalent to that intended by § 25.207, Stall Warning, must be considered to have been met without provision of an additional, unique warning device.

(2)*Failure Cases* Following failures of the high incidence protection function not shown to be extremely improbable, if the function no longer satisfies paragraph b, Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection Function, paragraphs b(1), (2), and

(3)of this special condition, stall warning must be provided in accordance with § 25.207. The stall warning should prevent inadvertent stall under the following conditions:

(a)Power off straight stall approaches to a speed 5 percent below the warning onset.

(b)Turning flight stall approaches with at least 1.5g load factor normal to the flight path at entry rate of at least 2 knots per second when recovery is initiated not less than one second after warning onset. e. *High Incidence Handling Demonstrations.* In lieu of the requirements of § 25.201, the following special conditions apply: Maneuvers to the limit of the longitudinal control in the nose up direction must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30 degree banked turns under the following conditions:

(1)The high incidence protection function operating normally.

(2)Initial power condition of:

(a)Power off.

(b)The power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5 V SR1 , where V SR1 is the reference stall speed with the flaps in the approach position, the landing gear retracted, and the maximum landing weight. The flap position to be used to determine this power setting is that position in which the stall speed, V SR1 , does not exceed 110% of the stall speed, V SR0 , with the flaps in the most extended landing position.

(3)[Reserved]

(4)Flaps, landing gear and deceleration devices in any likely combination of positions.

(5)Representative weights within the range for which certification is requested, and

(6)The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system. f. *High Incidence Handling Characteristics.* In lieu of the requirements of § 25.203, the following special conditions apply:

(1)In demonstrating the handling characteristics specified in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and

(5)below, the following procedures must be used:

(a)Starting at a speed sufficiently above the minimum steady flight speed to ensure that a steady rate of speed reduction can be established, apply the longitudinal control so that the speed reduction does not exceed one knot per second until the control reaches the stop.

(b)The longitudinal control must be maintained at the stop until the airplane has reached a stabilized flight condition and must then be recovered by normal recovery techniques.

(c)The requirements for turning flight maneuver demonstrations must also be met with accelerated rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to the maximum rate achievable.

(2)Throughout maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second, both in straight flight and in 30 degree banked turns, the airplane's characteristics must be as follows:

(a)There must not be any abnormal airplane nose-up pitching.

(b)There must not be any uncommanded nose-down pitching that would be indicative of stall. However, reasonable attitude changes associated with stabilizing the incidence at alpha limit as the longitudinal control reaches the stop would be acceptable. Any reduction of pitch attitude associated with stabilizing the incidence at the alpha limit should be achieved smoothly and at a low pitch rate, such that it is not likely to be mistaken for natural stall identification.

(c)There must not be any uncommanded lateral or directional motion, and the pilot must retain good lateral and directional control by conventional use of the cockpit controllers throughout the maneuver.

(d)The airplane must not exhibit buffeting of a magnitude and severity that would act as a deterrent to completing the maneuver.

(3)In maneuvers with increased rates of deceleration, some degradation of characteristics is acceptable, associated with a transient excursion beyond the stabilized alpha-limit. However, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics or characteristics that would deter the pilot from holding the longitudinal controller on the stop for a period of time appropriate to the maneuvers.

(4)It must always be possible to reduce incidence by conventional use of the controller.

(5)The rate at which the airplane can be maneuvered from trim speeds associated with scheduled operating speeds, such as V 2 and V REF , up to alpha-limit must not be unduly damped or significantly slower than can be achieved on conventionally controlled transport airplanes. g. *Atmospheric Disturbances.* Operation of the high incidence protection function must not adversely affect aircraft control during expected levels of atmospheric disturbances or impede the application of recovery procedures in case of windshear. Simulator tests and analysis may be used to evaluate such conditions but must be validated by limited flight testing to confirm handling qualities at critical loading conditions. h. *[Reserved].* i. *Proof of Compliance.* In addition to the requirements of § 25.21, the following special conditions apply: The flying qualities must be evaluated at the most unfavorable center of gravity position. j. *Longitudinal Control:*

(1)In lieu of the requirements of § 25.145(a) and (a)(1), the following special conditions apply: It must be possible—at any point between the trim speed for straight flight and V min —to pitch the nose downward, so that the acceleration to this selected trim speed is prompt, with: The airplane trimmed for straight flight at the speed achievable by the automatic trim system and at the most unfavorable center of gravity;

(2)In lieu of the requirements of § 25.145(b)(6), the following special conditions apply: With power off, flaps extended and the airplane trimmed at 1.3 V SR1 , obtain and maintain airspeeds between V min and either 1.6 V SR1 or V FE , whichever is lower. k. *Airspeed Indicating System.*

(1)In lieu of the requirements of § 25.1323(c)(1), the following special conditions apply: V MO to V min with the flaps retracted.

(2)In lieu of the requirements of § 25.1323(c)(2), the following special conditions apply: V min to V FE with flaps in the landing position. 7. Flight Envelope Protection: Normal Load Factor

(g)Limiting In addition to the requirements of § 25.143(a)—and in the absence of other limiting factors—the following special conditions apply: a. The positive limiting load factor must not be less than:

(1)2.5g for the Electronic Flight Control System

(EFCS)normal state.

(2)2.0g for the EFCS normal state with the high lift devices extended. b. The negative limiting load factor must be equal to or more negative than:

(1)Minus 1.0g for the EFCS normal state.

(2)0.0g for the EFCS normal state with high lift devices extended. Note: This special condition does not impose an upper bound for the normal load factor limit, nor does it require that the limit exist. If the limit is set at a value beyond the structural design limit maneuvering load factor “n,” indicated in §§ 25.333(b) and 25.337(b) and (c), there should be a very positive tactile feel built into the controller and obvious to the pilot that serves as a deterrent to inadvertently exceeding the structural limit. 8. Flight Envelope Protection: Pitch, Roll, and High Speed Limiting Functions In addition to § 25.143, the following special conditions apply: a. Operation of the high speed limiter during all routine and descent procedure flight must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to the overspeed warning. b. The pitch limiting function must not impede airplane maneuvering, including an all-engines operating takeoff, for pitch angles up to the maximum required for normal operations plus a suitable margin in the pitch axis to allow for satisfactory speed control. c. The high speed limiting function must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to V MO /M MO during all routine and descent procedure flight conditions. d. The pitch and roll limiting functions must not restrict nor prevent attaining bank angles up to 65 degrees and pitch attitudes necessary for emergency maneuvering. Positive spiral stability, which is introduced above 35 degrees bank angle, must not require excessive pilot strength on the side stick controller to achieve bank angles up to 65 degrees. Stick force at bank angles greater than 35 degrees must not be so light that over-control would lead to pilot-induced oscillations. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 15, 2007. Stephen Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-3213 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27338; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-148-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive

(AD)that applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new removal limits for certain components of the flap system and to reduce the interval of inspections for fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements (PSEs). This proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate reduced initial inspection and repeat inspection intervals for certain PSEs. This proposed AD results from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Rathfelder, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone

(562)627-5229; fax

(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27338; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-148-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or may can visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On August 11, 2003, we issued AD 2003-17-01, amendment 39-13274 (68 FR 49686, August 19, 2003), for all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. That AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), to incorporate new removal limits for certain components of the flap system and to reduce the interval of inspections for fatigue cracking of certain principal structural elements (PSEs). That AD resulted from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2003-17-01, Boeing has made a further damage tolerance analysis of certain PSEs on Model 717-200 airplanes. The analysis was repeated to divide one larger PSE into several smaller PSEs and to include new inspection procedures. The damage tolerance analysis resulted in a reduction to the inspection initial and repeat intervals of some PSEs and an increase to intervals for other PSEs. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect fatigue cracking of certain PSEs. Fatigue cracking, if not detected and corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing 717-200 Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006. Among other things, Revision 5 of the ALI revises intervals for initial and repeat inspections for fatigue cracking of certain PSEs. Additionally, Revision 5 updates certain portions of the non-destructive inspection

(NDI)techniques and procedures, and corrects some typographical errors that appeared in an earlier revision. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2003-17-01. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2003-17-01. This proposed AD would also require operators to incorporate the Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006, into the applicable maintenance and inspection program. Change to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2003-17-01. Since AD 2003-17-01 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, paragraphs

(a)and

(b)of AD 2003-17-01 have been re-identified as paragraphs

(f)and

(g)of this proposed AD. Costs of Compliance The FAA estimates that 108 airplanes of U.S. registry are affected by AD 2003-17-01, that it takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of the actions required by AD 2003-17-01 and retained in this proposed AD is estimated to be $8,640, or $80 per airplane. There are about 155 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 121 airplanes of U.S. registry. The new proposed maintenance and inspection program revision would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the new proposed AD to U.S. operators is $9,680, 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13274 (68 FR 49686, August 19, 2003) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27338; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-148-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 12, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-17-01. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to incorporate new inspections for fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs). Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to incorporate the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph

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

(AC)25-1529-1. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a revised damage tolerance analysis. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain PSEs, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance

(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003-17-01 Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section

(f)Within 180 days after September 23, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-17-01), revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI), in accordance with Boeing Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 3, dated August 2002.

(g)Except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD: After the actions specified in paragraph

(f)of this AD have been done, no alternative inspection intervals or replacement times may be approved for the PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in Boeing Report Number MDC-96K9063, Revision 3, dated August 2002. New Requirements of This AD Revising Airworthiness Limitations Section Using Revision 5

(h)Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, ALI, in accordance with Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006.

(i)Except as provided by paragraph

(j)of this AD: After the actions specified in paragraph

(h)of this AD have been done, no alternative inspection intervals or replacement times may be approved for the PSEs and safe-life limited parts specified in Boeing 717-200 ALI, Report MDC-96K9063, Revision 5, dated February 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

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

(3)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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-3170 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27340; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-271-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) Airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F Airplanes, and Model MD-10-30F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-30F airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing bracket assemblies and jumper wires in the center main wheel well to improve the bonding path between the structure

(wall)of the lower auxiliary fuel tank and its internal fuel pumps; measuring the electrical resistance between the fuel pump housings and the fuel tank structure; and doing corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct an inadequate bond between the internal fuel pump housings and the structure of the lower auxiliary fuel tank. This condition, if not corrected, could fail to meet fault current requirements and result in a potential ignition source that, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed 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: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27340; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-271- AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.* , type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We have received a report indicating that the electrical bond may not be adequate between the internal fuel pumps of the lower auxiliary fuel tank and the fuel tank structure (wall), on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-30F airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could fail to meet fault current requirements and result in a potential ignition source that, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Related Rulemaking Operators should note that the same unsafe condition exists in all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes and that we may issue a separate rulemaking to address those airplanes. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-245, dated September 19, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing bracket assemblies and jumper wires in the center main wheel well to improve the bonding path between the lower auxiliary fuel tank and its internal fuel pumps; measuring the electrical resistance between the fuel pump housings and the fuel tank structure (wall); and doing corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions, if any resistance measurement exceeds 2.5 milliohms, include reworking the electrical bonding between the fuel pump housings and the fuel tank structure. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 242 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 178 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Install bracket assemblies and jumper wires 4 $1,928 $2,248 $400,144 Do electrical resistance measurement 1 None required 80 14,240 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27340; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-271-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 12, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-30F airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-245, dated September 19, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an inadequate bond between the internal fuel pump housings and the structure

(wall)of the lower auxiliary fuel tank. This condition, if not corrected, could fail to meet fault current requirements and result in a potential ignition source that, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent 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. Installation of Brackets and Jumpers, and Resistance Measurement

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-245, dated September 19, 2006.

(1)Install bracket assemblies and jumper wires between the structure of the lower auxiliary fuel tank and its internal fuel pumps.

(2)Do an electrical resistance measurement between the fuel pump housings and structure of the lower auxiliary fuel tank. Corrective Action

(g)If any resistance measurement done in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is greater than 2.5 milliohms on either fuel pump housing: Before further flight, rework the electrical bonding between the fuel pump housings and the structure of the lower auxiliary fuel tank as needed to achieve a resistance measurement of 2.5 milliohms or less on both fuel pump housings, as described in Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-245, dated September 19, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-3171 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27339; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-280-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F Airplanes, Model DC-10-15 Airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) Airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F Airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F Airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain transport category airplanes identified above. This proposed AD would require modifying the fuel boost pumps. This proposed AD results from a fuel boost pump found with blown thermal fuses and a fractured thrust washer. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel boost pumps, which could lead to the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed 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: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27339; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-280-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received a report indicating that an operator found a fuel boost pump with blown thermal fuses and a fractured thrust washer. Investigation revealed that the fractured Stellite thrust washer led to arcing damage to the rotor assembly shaft and stator end windings. Stellite thrust washers are used in the rotor assembly of fuel boost pumps, part numbers (P/Ns) 60-847-1A, -2, and -3. Failure of the fuel boost pumps, if not corrected, could lead to the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the following service bulletins: • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A254, dated September 8, 2006, for McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes. • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A134, dated September 8, 2006, for McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A254 describes procedures for modifying fuel boost pumps, P/Ns 60-847-1A, -2, and -3. The modification involves replacing the pump assembly connector, washers, screws, and other hardware with new parts, upgrading the rotor assembly, inspecting the stator assembly wire leads, and rerouting the stator-to-connector wire leads. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A134 describes procedures for modifying fuel boost pumps, P/Ns 60-847-2 and -3. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The Boeing service bulletins refer to Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-28-3, dated May 1, 2006, as an additional source of service information for modifying the fuel boost pumps, P/Ns 60-847-1A, -2, and -3. (The modification converts these parts to P/N 60-847-4.) Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-28-3 specifies prior accomplishment of Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-1A-28-6, dated February 15, 1973, for fuel boost pump P/N 60-847-1A. Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-28-3 also specifies prior accomplishment of Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-3-28-13, dated March 17, 1975, for fuel boost pump P/N 60-847-2. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 512 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 360 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed modification would take about 3 work hours per fuel boost pump, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $640 per fuel boost pump. Depending on the airplane configuration, there are between 10 and 19 fuel boost pumps per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is between $3,168,000 and $6,019,200, or between $8,800 and $16,720 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27339; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-280-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 12, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

(1)McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A254, dated September 8, 2006.

(2)McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A134, dated September 8, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a fuel boost pump found with blown thermal fuses and a fractured thrust washer. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel boost pumps, which could lead to the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent 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. Service Bulletin Reference Paragraph

(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the following service bulletins, as applicable:

(1)For the airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A254, dated September 8, 2006.

(2)For the airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A134, dated September 8, 2006. Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A254, dated September 8, 2006; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A134, dated September 8, 2006; refer to Crane Hydro-Aire Service Bulletin 60-847-28-3, dated May 1, 2006, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the modification in paragraph

(g)of this AD. Modification

(g)At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, modify the fuel boost pumps having part numbers 60-847-1A, -2, and -3, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.

(1)For fuel boost pumps identified as Configuration 1 or 2 in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. of the applicable service bulletin, do the modification within 120 months after the effective date of this AD.

(2)For fuel boost pumps identified as Configuration 3 in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. of the applicable service bulletin, do the modification within 72 months after the effective date 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.

(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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-3166 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27334; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-279-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-33, -42, and -43 Airplanes; Model DC-8-50 Series Airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and -55 Airplanes; Model DC-8-60 Series Airplanes; Model DC-8-60F Series Airplanes; Model DC-8-72 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas airplanes described previously. This proposed AD would require installing bonding jumpers to the airplane wing structure from the fuel system in-line electrical solenoid valves along the left and right wing front spar. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent point-of-contact arcing or filament heating damage in the fuel lines that could create a potential ignition source, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed 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: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27334; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-279-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We have received a report indicating that fuel system in-line solenoid valve installations located in fuel vapor zones along the front spar of the left and right wings might not have adequate ground paths to dissipate the overcurrent from a lightning-induced high voltage transient. This condition, if not corrected, could result in point-of-contact arcing or filament heating damage in the fuel lines that could create a potential ignition source, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-28-091, dated November 7, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing bonding jumpers to the airplane wing structure from the fuel system in-line electrical solenoid valves along the left and right wing front spar. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 216 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 145 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The total fleet cost is estimated to be between $456,460 and $1,018,770. Estimated Costs Airplane group Work hours Parts Cost per airplane 1 8 $2,508 $3,148 2 9 4,237 4,957 3 10 6,226 7,026 4 8 4,473 5,113 5 6 3,674 4,154 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27334; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-279-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 12, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-33, -42, and -43 airplanes; Model DC-8-51, -52, -53, and -55 airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and -55 airplanes; Model DC-8-61, -62, and -63 airplanes; Model DC-8-61F, -62F, and -63F airplanes; Model DC-8-72 airplanes; and Model DC-8-71F, -72F, and -73F airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-28-091, dated November 7, 2006. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent point-of-contact arcing or filament heating damage in the fuel lines that could create a potential ignition source, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent 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. Installation of Bonding Jumpers

(f)Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install bonding jumpers to the airplane wing structure from the fuel system in-line electrical solenoid valves along the left and right wing front spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-28-091, dated November 7, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-3165 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27341; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-272-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing bracket assemblies and jumper wires in the center main wheel well to improve the bonding path between the structure

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, *Attention:* Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed 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: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2007-27341; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-272-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We have received a report indicating that the electrical bond may not be adequate between the internal fuel pumps of the lower auxiliary fuel tank and the fuel tank structure (wall), on Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could fail to meet fault current requirements and result in a potential ignition source that, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could cause a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Related Rulemaking Operators should note that the same unsafe condition exists in certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 airplanes and that we may issue a separate rulemaking to address those airplanes. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-127, dated September 19, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing bracket assemblies and jumper wires between the lower auxiliary fuel tank and its internal fuel pumps; for doing an electrical resistance measurement between the fuel pump housings and the auxiliary fuel tank wall; and for doing corrective actions if necessary. Corrective actions, if any resistance measurement exceeds 2.5 milliohms, include reworking the electrical bonding between the fuel pump housings and the fuel tank wall. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Costs of Compliance There are about 195 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 107 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Install bracket assemblies and jumper wires 4 $1,928 $2,248 $240,536 Do electrical resistance measurement 1 None required 80 8,560 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27341; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-272-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 12, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an inadequate bond between the internal fuel pump housings and the structure

(1)Install bracket assemblies and jumper wires between the structure of the lower auxiliary fuel tank and its internal fuel pumps.

(2)Do an electrical resistance measurement between the fuel pump housings and the lower auxiliary fuel tank wall. Corrective Action

(g)If any resistance measurement done in accordance with paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is greater than 2.5 milliohms on either fuel pump housing: Before further flight, rework the electrical bonding between the fuel pump housings and the lower auxiliary fuel tank wall as needed to achieve a resistance measurement of 2.5 milliohms or less on both fuel pump housings, as described in Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-127, dated September 19, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-3169 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27262; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-1] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Middlesboro, KY AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend Class E5 airspace at Middlesboro, KY. An Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)A has been developed for Middlesboro-Bell County Airport. As a result, additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level

(AGL)is needed to contain the SIAP. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-00001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-27262/Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Ward, Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone

(404)305-5627. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-27262/Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filled in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* or the Superintendent of Document's Web page at *http://www.access.gpo/nara.* Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202)267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,

(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E5 airspace at Middlesboro, KY. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 16, 2006, and effective September 16, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore,

(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)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565; 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 16, 2006, and effective September 16, 2006, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO KY E5 Middlesboro, KY [REVISED] Middlesboro—Bell County Airport, KY (Lat. 36°36′38″ N, long. 83°44′15″ W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Middlesboro—Bell County. Issued in College Park, Georgia on February 13, 2007. Mark D. Ward, Group Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. 07-857 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

U.S. Code