Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

14,788 words·~67 min read·/register/2007/03/12/07-1127

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 47 Monday, March 12, 2007 Proposed Rules FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 627 RIN 3052-AC16 Title IV Conservators, Receivers, and Voluntary Liquidations; Joint and Several Liability—Priority of Claims AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, Agency, we), proposes to amend the priority of claims regulations to provide priority of claims rights to Farm Credit System (System, FCS, Farm Credit) banks if they make payments under a reallocation agreement to holders of consolidated and System-wide obligations on behalf of a defaulting System bank.

We also propose to clarify that payments to a class of claims will be on a pro rata basis. DATES: You may send comments on or before May 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: We offer a variety of methods for you to submit comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, we encourage commenters to submit comments by e-mail or through the Agency's Web site or the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may also send comments by mail or by facsimile transmission. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comment multiple times via different methods.

You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail:* Send us an e-mail at *reg-comm@fca.gov.* • *Agency Web site: http://www.fca.gov.* Once you are at the Web site, select “Legal Info,” then “Pending Regulations and Notices.” • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Gary K. Van Meter, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090. • *Fax:*

(703)883-4477. Posting and processing of faxes may be delayed. Please consider another means to comment, if possible. You may review copies of comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our Web site at *http://www.fca.gov.* Once you are in the Web site, select “Legal Info,” and then select “Public Comments.” We will show your comments as submitted, but for technical reasons we may omit items such as logos and special characters. Identifying information that you provide, such as phone numbers and addresses, will be publicly available. However, we will attempt to remove e-mail addresses to help reduce Internet spam. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,

(703)883-4414, TTY

(703)883-4434, or Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090,

(703)883-4020, TTY

(703)883-4020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Objectives Our objectives in this proposed rule are to: • Provide System banks that make payments under a reallocation agreement to holders of consolidated and System-wide obligations of a defaulting bank the same priority of claims rights they would have for payments made under statutory joint and several calls by the FCA. • Clarify that claims in the same class will receive payments on a pro rata basis if there are insufficient assets in a receivership to pay the entire class in full. II. Background A. Joint and Several Liability Under the Act System associations obtain funding by means of direct loans from their affiliated Farm Credit banks. The banks in turn obtain their funding primarily by issuing System-wide obligations to investors through the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (Funding Corporation). 1 The banks' authority to issue System-wide obligations is provided in section 4.2(d) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act). 2 Section 4.2(c) of the Act also authorizes the banks to obtain funding by issuing consolidated obligations with other banks operating under the same title of the Act, but all of the System's joint funding at the present time is through System-wide obligations. 3 1 The Funding Corporation is the fiscal agent of the System established under section 4.9 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2160). 2 12 U.S.C. 2153(d). 3 12 U.S.C. 2153(c). Investors in consolidated and System-wide obligations have three levels of repayment sources. Under section 4.4(a)(2)(A) of the Act, each bank is primarily liable for the portion of any consolidated or System-wide obligation made on its behalf. 4 If the bank that is primarily liable is unable to pay, payment must be made by the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), created in 1988. The FCSIC insures the timely payment of interest and principal on consolidated and System-wide obligations (these obligations are referred to as “insured obligations”). The source of payments by the FCSIC is the Farm Credit Insurance Fund (Insurance Fund), whose assets consist primarily of premiums paid by the System banks (as well as earnings on the premiums). 5 The Insurance Fund must be used to make payments on behalf of System banks defaulting on their insured obligations, but the FCSIC also has discretion to make other expenditures out of the Insurance Fund. 6 4 12 U.S.C. 2155(a)(2)(A). 5 Section 5.55 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 2277a-4). 6 Section 5.60(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 2277a-9). If a System bank is unable to pay the portion of any insured obligations issued on its behalf and the Insurance Fund is exhausted, section 4.4(a)(2) of the Act provides that the other (nondefaulting) System banks are jointly and severally liable for such timely payments as follows: • The FCA will make calls on nondefaulting banks in proportion to each bank's proportionate share of the aggregate available collateral held by all nondefaulting banks. 7 7 Section 4.4(a)(2)(F) of the Act requires the FCA to appoint a receiver upon making a joint and several call. • If the aggregate available collateral does not fully satisfy the insured obligations of the defaulting bank, the FCA will make calls on all nondefaulting banks in proportion to each bank's remaining assets. A bank's “available collateral” is defined in section 4.4(a)(2)(C) as “the amount (determined at the close of the last calendar quarter ending before such call) by which a bank's collateral * * * exceeds the collateral required to support the bank's outstanding notes, bonds, debentures, and other similar obligations.” Furthermore, the Act provides subrogation rights to both the banks and the FCSIC for payments of insured obligations made on behalf of a defaulting bank. With respect to FCSIC, section 5.61(c)(1) and

(2)of the Act provides: [O]n the payment to an owner of an insured obligation issued on behalf of an insured System bank in receivership, the [FCSIC] shall be subrogated to all rights of the owner against the bank to the extent of the payment * * * Subrogation * * * shall include the right on the part of the [FCSIC] to receive the same dividends from the proceeds of the assets of the bank as would have been payable to the owner on a claim for the insured obligation. 8 8 12 U.S.C. 2277a-10(c). With respect to System banks, section 4.4(a)(2)(E) provides: Any System bank that, pursuant to a call by the [FCA], makes a payment of principal or interest to the holder of any consolidated or System-wide obligations issued on behalf of another System bank shall be subrogated to the rights of the holder against such other bank to the extent of such payment. B. FCA Priority of Claims Regulations Part 627 of our regulations governs the conduct of System institution conservatorships and receiverships. Section 627.2750 sets forth the priority of claims in the distribution of the assets of a bank in liquidation. After payment of certain receivership expenses and secured claims, paragraph

(h)provides for the payment of “[a]ll claims of holders of consolidated and Systemwide bonds and claims of the other Farm Credit banks arising from their payments pursuant to [joint and several calls by the FCA under] 12 U.S.C. 2155” before payments are made to general creditors. Section 627.2755 requires the receiver to pay in full all the claims of a class of claims of the same priority (or make provision for such payment) before paying the claims of classes of lesser priority. That regulation further provides that the receiver must pay such claims on a pro rata basis if there are insufficient funds to pay in full any class of claims against a System association in receivership. However, the regulation does not address how the receiver must pay claims against a System bank or institution other than an association in the case of insufficient funds to pay a class of claims in full. C. System Banks' Petition To Amend Regulations At the present time, the System banks and associations are well capitalized, and no bank or association has been placed in receivership since 1989. The FCA has never made joint and several calls on System banks to pay consolidated and System-wide bondholders, and monies from the Insurance Fund have never been used for that purpose. Nonetheless, the potential effect of a joint and several call based on banks' aggregate available collateral has caused System banks to consider possible alternative methodologies based on an agreement among the banks. In recent years, the banks have discussed the benefits and feasibility of using a methodology for joint and several calls based on the proportion of total System-wide debt on which each nondefaulting bank is primarily liable. The banks have explored the possibility of entering into a reallocation agreement among themselves to pay a defaulting bank's maturing insured obligations as the Insurance Fund is nearing exhaustion but before statutory joint and several calls are triggered. The banks have informed us that, while they are in general agreement on the outlines of an agreement for payment based on individual banks' outstanding System-wide debt, a key to an agreement is that payments made under the banks' agreement would be entitled to the same payment rights as if the banks had made the payments under a statutory joint and several call. The System banks have petitioned the FCA to amend our priority of claims regulations to provide the same subrogation rights to banks under a reallocation agreement to make joint and several payments on insured obligations that the banks would receive if they made payments under section 4.4(a)(2) of the Act. We have reviewed the banks' petition and believe there is merit in the banks' efforts to create an alternative methodology that they perceive has the potential benefit to increase funds available to pay a defaulting bank's insured obligations. Such an agreement would be subject to Agency approval. Therefore, we are proposing to amend our regulations to allow for such a reallocation agreement and to provide priority of claims rights equivalent to those granted to the banks for payments under section 4.4(a)(2) of the Act. The proposed rule is described more fully below. III. Description of Proposed Rule Section 627.2750—Priority of Claims—Banks Section 627.2750 sets forth the priority of claims for banks in liquidation. Each paragraph describes a class of claims. Existing paragraph

(h)provides for payment of claims of holders of consolidated and System-wide obligations and of other System banks arising from their payments made under statutory joint and several calls. We propose to add to this paragraph all claims of other System banks arising from their payments of consolidated and System-wide obligations under a reallocation agreement. The agreement must be in writing and approved by the FCA. Section 627.2755—Payment of Claims Existing § 627.2755 contains several provisions that apply to some or all types of System institutions that may be placed in receivership by the FCA under part 627 of our regulations. 9 We propose to amend paragraph

(a)by deleting language limiting the pro rata requirement to association receiverships. This will clarify that, in all System institution receiverships, if there are insufficient funds to pay a class of claims in full, payments to such class must be on a pro rata basis. 9 We note that part 627 of FCA's regulations does not apply to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, also known as Farmer Mac. Regulations applicable to Farmer Mac are in part 650 of FCA's regulations. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the FCA hereby certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 627 Agriculture, Banks, Banking, Claims, Rural areas. For the reasons stated in the preamble, we propose to amend part 627 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows: PART 627—TITLE IV CONSERVATORS, RECEIVERS, AND VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 627 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4.2, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 5.51, 5.58, 5.61 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2277a, 2277a-7, 2277a-10). Subpart B—Receivers and Receiverships 2. Revise § 627.2750(h) to read as follows: § 627.2750 Priority of claims—banks.

(h)All claims of holders of consolidated and System-wide bonds and all claims of the other Farm Credit banks arising from their payments on consolidated and System-wide bonds pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 2155 or pursuant to an agreement among the banks to reallocate the payments, provided the agreement is in writing and approved by the Farm Credit Administration. § 627.2755 [Amended] 3. Amend § 627.2755(a) by removing the words “described in § 627.2745” in the last sentence. Dated: March 7, 2007. Roland E. Smith, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. E7-4427 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. NM362 Special Conditions No. 25-06-15-SC] Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Interaction of Systems And Structures, Electronic Flight Control System—Control Surface Awareness, High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)Protection, Limit Engine Torque Loads for Sudden Engine Stoppage, and Design Roll Maneuver Requirement AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Boeing Model 787-8 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 electronic flight control systems and high bypass engines. These special conditions also pertain to the effects of such novel or unusual design features, such as effects on the structural performance of the airplane. Finally, these special conditions pertain to effects of certain conditions on these novel or unusual design features, such as the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM362, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. All comments must be marked Docket No. NM362. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meghan Gordon, FAA, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-2138; facsimile

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 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 proposed special conditions. The docket is available for public inspection 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 notice 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 the proposed special conditions based on comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied for an FAA type certificate for its new Boeing Model 787-8 passenger airplane. The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane will be an all-new, two-engine jet transport airplane with a two-aisle cabin. The maximum takeoff weight will be 476,000 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 381 passengers. Type Certification Basis Under provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Boeing must show that Boeing Model 787-8 airplanes (hereafter referred to as “the 787”) meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-117, except §§ 25.809(a) and 25.812, which will remain at Amendment 25-115. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the 787 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the 787 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 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 or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design Features The 787 will incorporate a number of novel or unusual design features. Because of 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 for the 787 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. Most of these proposed special conditions are identical or nearly identical to those previously required for type certification of the Model 777 series airplanes. Most of these proposed special conditions were derived initially from standardized requirements developed by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), comprised of representatives of the FAA, Europe's Joint Aviation Authorities (now replaced by the European Aviation Safety Agency), and industry. In the case of some of these requirements, a draft notice of proposed rulemaking has been prepared but no final rule has yet been promulgated. Additional special conditions will be issued for other novel or unusual design features of the 787 in the near future. 1. Interaction of Systems and Structures The 787 is equipped with systems that affect the airplane's structural performance, either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction. That is, the airplane's systems affect how it responds in maneuver and gust conditions, and thereby affect its structural capability. These systems may also affect the aeroelastic stability of the airplane. Such systems represent a novel and unusual feature when compared to the technology envisioned in the current airworthiness standards. A special condition is needed to require consideration of the effects of systems on the structural capability and aeroelastic stability of the airplane, both in the normal and in the failed state. This special condition requires that the airplane meet the structural requirements of subparts C and D of 14 CFR part 25 when the airplane systems are fully operative. The special condition also requires that the airplane meet these requirements considering failure conditions. In some cases, reduced margins are allowed for failure conditions based on system reliability. 2. Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness With a response-command type of flight control system and no direct coupling from cockpit controller to control surface, such as on the 787, the pilot is not aware of the actual surface deflection position during flight maneuvers. These features are novel and unusual when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These special conditions are meant to 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. 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, piloted or auto-flight system control of the airplane might be inadvertently continued in a way that would cause loss of control or other unsafe handling or performance characteristics. These proposed special conditions 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 an annunciation must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers, such as a rapid roll, are necessarily associated with intended full or nearly full control surface deflection. Simple alerting systems which would function in both intended or unexpected control-limiting situations must be properly balanced between providing needed crew awareness and avoiding nuisance warnings. 3. High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)Protection The 787 will use electrical and electronic systems which perform critical functions. These systems may be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields

(HIRF)external to the airplane. There is no specific regulation that addresses requirements for protection of electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from radio frequency transmitters and use of sensitive avionics /electronics and electrical systems to command and control the airplane have made it necessary to provide adequate protection. To ensure that a level of safety is achieved that is equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, the proposed special conditions are needed for the 787. These proposed special conditions require that avionics/electronics and electrical systems that perform critical functions be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function because of HIRF. High-power radio frequency transmitters for radio, radar, television, and satellite communications can adversely affect operations of airplane electrical and electronic systems. Therefore, immunity of critical avionics/electronics and electrical systems to HIRF must be established. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, adequate protection from HIRF exists if airplane system immunity is demonstrated when exposed to the HIRF environments in either paragraph

(a)OR

(b)below:

(a)A minimum environment of 100 volts rms (root-mean-square) per meter electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.

(1)System elements and their associated wiring harnesses must be exposed to the environment without benefit of airframe shielding.

(2)Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.

(b)An environment external to the airframe of the field strengths shown in the table below for the frequency ranges indicated. Immunity to both peak and average field strength components from the table must be demonstrated. Frequency Field strength (volts per meter) Peak Average 10 kHz-100 kHz 50 50 100 kHz-500 kHz 50 50 500 kHz-2 MHz 50 50 2 MHz-30 MHz 100 100 30 MHz-70 MHz 50 50 70 MHz-100 MHz 50 50 100 MHz-200 MHz 100 100 200 MHz-400 MHz 100 100 400 MHz-700 MHz 700 50 700 MHz-1 GHz 700 100 1 GHz-2 GHz 2000 200 2 GHz-4 GHz 3000 200 4 GHz-6 GHz 3000 200 6 GHz-8 GHz 1000 200 8 GHz-12 GHz 3000 300 12 GHz-18 GHz 2000 200 18 GHz-40 GHz 600 200 Field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square

(rms)values over the complete modulation period. The environment levels identified above are the result of an FAA review of existing studies on the subject of HIRF and of the work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of ARAC. 4. Limit Engine Torque Loads for Sudden Engine Stoppage The 787 will have high-bypass engines with a chord-swept fan 112 inches in diameter. Engines of this size were not envisioned when § 25.361, pertaining to loads imposed by engine seizure, was adopted in 1965. Worst case engine seizure events become increasingly more severe with increasing engine size because of the higher inertia of the rotating components. Section 25.361(b)(1) requires that for turbine engine installations, the engine mounts and the supporting structures must be designed to withstand a “limit engine torque load imposed by sudden engine stoppage due to malfunction or structural failure.” Limit loads are expected to occur about once in the lifetime of any airplane. Section 25.305 requires that supporting structures be able to support limit loads without detrimental permanent deformation, meaning that supporting structures should remain serviceable after a limit load event. Since adoption of § 25.361(b)(1), the size, configuration, and failure modes of jet engines have changed considerably. Current engines are much larger and are designed with large bypass fans. In the event of a structural failure, these engines are capable of producing much higher transient loads on the engine mounts and supporting structures. As a result, modern high bypass engines are subject to certain rare-but-severe engine seizure events. Service history shows that such events occur far less frequently than limit load events. Although it is important for the airplane to be able to support such rare loads safely without failure, it is unrealistic to expect that no permanent deformation will occur. Given this situation, ARAC has proposed a design standard for today's large engines. For the commonly-occurring deceleration events, the proposed standard requires engine mounts and structures to support maximum torques without detrimental permanent deformation. For the rare-but-severe engine seizure events such as loss of any fan, compressor, or turbine blade, the proposed standard requires engine mounts and structures to support maximum torques without failure, but allows for some deformation in the structure. The FAA concludes that modern large engines, including those on the 787, are novel and unusual compared to those envisioned when § 25.361(b)(1) was adopted and thus warrant a special condition. The proposed special condition contains design criteria recommended by ARAC. The ARAC proposal would revise the wording of § 25.361(b), including §§ 25.361(b)(1) and (b)(2), removing language pertaining to structural failures and moving it to a separate requirement that discusses the reduced factors of safety that apply to these failures. 5. Design Roll Maneuver Requirement The 787 is equipped with an electronic flight control system that provides control of the aircraft through pilot inputs to the flight computer. Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for “control laws,” for which aileron deflection is proportional to control stick deflection. They do not address any nonlinearities 1 or other effects on aileron actuation that may be caused by electronic flight controls. Therefore, the FAA considers the flight control system to be a novel and unusual feature compared to those envisioned when current regulations were adopted. Since this type of system may affect flight loads, and therefore the structural capability of the airplane, special conditions are needed to address these effects. 1 A nonlinearity is a situation where output does not change in the same proportion as input. This proposed special condition differs from current requirements in that it requires that the roll maneuver result from defined movements of the cockpit roll control as opposed to defined aileron deflections. Also, the proposed special condition requires an additional load condition at design maneuvering speed (V A ), in which the cockpit roll control is returned to neutral following the initial roll input. This proposed special condition differs from similar special conditions applied to previous designs. This special condition is limited to the roll axis only, whereas previous special conditions also included pitch and yaw axes. A special condition is no longer needed for the yaw axis because § 25.351 was revised at Amendment 25-91 to take into account effects of an electronic flight control system. No special condition is needed for the pitch axis because the applicant's proposed methodology for the pitch maneuver takes into account effects of an electronic flight control system. Applicability As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the 787. Should Boeing 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 proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features of the 787. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant that 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, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. 1. Interaction of Systems and Structures The Boeing Model 787-8 airplane is equipped with systems which affect the airplane's structural performance either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction. The influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with requirements of subparts C and D of part 25 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with this proposed special condition for airplanes equipped with flight control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation systems, flutter control systems, fuel management systems, and other systems that either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction affect structural performance. If this proposed special condition is used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.

(a)The criteria defined here address only direct structural consequences of system responses and performances. They cannot be considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. They may in some instances duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structures whose failure could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria defining acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not provided in this special condition.

(b)Depending on the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided in this special condition in order to demonstrate capability of the airplane to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative gust conditions or maneuvers for an airplane equipped with a load alleviation system.

(c)The following definitions are applicable to this special condition.

(1)*Structural performance:* Capability of the airplane to meet the structural requirements of part 25.

(2)*Flight limitations:* Limitations that can be applied to the airplane flight conditions following an in-flight failure occurrence and that are included in the flight manual (speed limitations or avoidance of severe weather conditions, for example).

(3)*Operational limitations:* Limitations, including flight limitations, that can be applied to the airplane operating conditions before dispatch (fuel, payload, and master minimum equipment list limitations, for example).

(4)*Probabilistic terms:* Terms (probable, improbable, extremely improbable) used in this special condition which are the same as those probabilistic terms used in § 25.1309.

(5)*Failure condition:* Term that is the same as that used in § 25.1309. The term failure condition in this proposed special condition, however, applies only to system failure conditions that affect structural performance of the airplane. Examples are system failure conditions that induce loads, change the response of the airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins. Note: Although failure annunciation system reliability must be included in probability calculations for paragraph

(f)of the proposed special condition, there is no specific reliability requirement for the annunciation system required in paragraph

(g)of the proposed special condition.

(d)*General.* The following criteria will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane structure.

(e)*System fully operative.* With the system fully operative, the following apply:

(1)Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in subpart C of 14 CFR part 25 (or used in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant degree of nonlinearity in rate of displacement of control surface or thresholds, or any other system nonlinearities, must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.

(2)The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 25 for static strength and residual strength, using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered if the applicant demonstrates that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.

(3)The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629.

(f)*System in the failure condition.* For any system failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:

(1)*Establishing loads at the time of failure.* Starting from 1-g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after failure.

(i)For static strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety related to probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety

(FS)is defined in Figure 1. EP12MR07.000

(ii)For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in subparagraph (f)(1)(i) of these special conditions. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.

(iii)Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond design cruise speed or design cruise mach number (V C /M C ), freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the margins intended by § 25.629(b)(2) are maintained.

(iv)Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.

(2)*Establishing loads in the system failed state for the continuation of the flight.* For the continuation of flight of the airplane in the system failed state and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:

(i)Loads derived from the following conditions (or used in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to V C /M C , or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight, must be determined:

(A)The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.331 and § 25.345.

(B)The limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in § 25.341 and § 25.345.

(C)The limit rolling conditions specified in § 25.349 and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in § 25.367 and § 25.427(b) and (c).

(D)The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.351.

(E)The limit ground loading conditions specified in § 25.473 and § 25.491.

(ii)For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of the special condition multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2. EP12MR07.001 Qj = (Tj)(Pj) Where: Tj = Average time spent in failure condition j (in hours) Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode j (per hour) Note: If Pj is greater than 10 -3 per flight hour then a 1.5 factor of safety must be applied to all limit load conditions specified in subpart C-Structure, of 14 CFR part 25.

(iii)For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of the special condition. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.

(iv)If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance then the effects of these loads must be taken into account.

(v)Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from Figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 25.629(b). EP12MR07.002 V′ = Clearance speed as defined by § 25.629(b)(2). V″ = Clearance speed as defined by § 25.629(b)(1). Qj = (Tj)(Pj) Where: Tj = Average time spent in failure condition j (in hours) Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode j (per hour) Note: If Pj is greater than 10-3 per flight hour, then the flutter clearance speed must not be less than V″.

(vi)Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in Figure 3 above, for any probable system failure condition combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by § 25.571(b).

(3)Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10-9, criteria other than those specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation to show continued safe flight and landing.

(g)*Failure indications.* For system failure detection and indication, the following apply.

(1)The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability of the airplane below the level required by part 25 or significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily checks, instead of detection and indication systems to achieve the objective of this requirement. Such certification maintenance inspections or daily checks must be limited to components on which faults are not readily detectable by normal detection and indication systems and where service history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.

(2)The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must be signaled to the crew during flight.

(h)*Dispatch with known failure conditions.* If the airplane is to be dispatched in a known system failure condition that affects structural performance, or affects the reliability of the remaining system to maintain structural performance, then the provisions of this special condition must be met, including the provisions of paragraph

(e)for the dispatched condition, and paragraph

(f)for subsequent failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for determining the safety margin in Figure 1. Flight limitations and expected operational limitations may be taken into account in establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the dispatched failure condition and the subsequent failure condition for the safety margins in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations must be such that the probability of being in this combined failure state and then subsequently encountering limit load conditions is extremely improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the subsequent system failure rate is greater than 10 -3 per hour. 2. Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness In addition to compliance with §§ 25.143, 25.671, and 25.672, the following special condition applies:

(a)The system design must ensure that the flightcrew is made suitably aware whenever the primary control means nears the limit of control authority. This indication should direct the pilot to take appropriate action to avoid the unsafe condition in accordance with appropriate airplane flight manual

(AFM)instructions. Depending on the application, suitable annunciations may include cockpit control position, annunciator light, or surface position indicators. Furthermore, this requirement applies at limits of control authority, not necessarily at limits of any individual surface travel.

(b)Suitability of such a display or alerting must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers are necessarily associated with intended full performance, which may require full 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 factors. A monitoring system which might compare airplane motion, surface deflection, and pilot demand could be useful for eliminating nuisance alerting. 3. High Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF)Protection

(a)Protection from Unwanted Effects of High-intensity Radiated Fields. Each electrical and electronic system which performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operation and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated fields external to the airplane.

(b)For the purposes of these Special Conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to or cause a failure condition that would prevent continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. 4. Limit Engine Torque Loads for Sudden Engine Stoppage In lieu of § 25.361(b) the following special condition is proposed:

(a)For turbine engine installations, the engine mounts, pylons, and adjacent supporting airframe structure must be designed to withstand 1g level flight loads acting simultaneously with the maximum limit torque loads imposed by each of the following:

(1)Sudden engine deceleration due to a malfunction which could result in a temporary loss of power or thrust.

(2)The maximum acceleration of the engine.

(b)For auxiliary power unit installations, the power unit mounts and adjacent supporting airframe structure must be designed to withstand 1g level flight loads acting simultaneously with the maximum limit torque loads imposed by each of the following:

(1)Sudden auxiliary power unit deceleration due to malfunction or structural failure.

(2)The maximum acceleration of the power unit.

(c)For engine supporting structure, an ultimate loading condition must be considered that combines 1g flight loads with the transient dynamic loads resulting from each of the following:

(1)Loss of any fan, compressor, or turbine blade.

(2)Where applicable to a specific engine design, any other engine structural failure that results in higher loads.

(d)The ultimate loads developed from the conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are to be multiplied by a factor of 1.0 when applied to engine mounts and pylons and multiplied by a factor of 1.25 when applied to adjacent supporting airframe structure. 5. Design Roll Maneuver Requirement In lieu of compliance to § 25.349(a), the following special conditions are proposed. The following conditions, speeds, and cockpit roll control motions (except as the motions may be limited by pilot effort) must be considered in combination with an airplane load factor of zero and of two-thirds of the positive maneuvering factor used in design. In determining the resulting control surface deflections, the torsional flexibility of the wing must be considered in accordance with § 25.301(b):

(a)Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the absence of a rational time history investigation of the maneuver.

(b)At V A , sudden movement of the cockpit roll control up to the limit is assumed. The position of the cockpit roll control must be maintained until a steady roll rate is achieved and then must be returned suddenly to the neutral position.

(c)At V C , the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than that obtained in paragraph (2).

(d)At V D , the cockpit roll control must be moved suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than one-third of that obtained in paragraph (2). Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 1, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4306 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27508; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-252-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) ERJ 170 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an obstruction at the cargo compartment fire extinguisher system drier metering unit

(DME)inlet, affecting the system effectiveness and, consequently, making the fire extinguishing capability at those compartments inadequate should a fire erupt. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1175; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27508; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-252-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agència Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-01-03, effective February 7, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that it has been found the occurrence of one case of obstruction at the cargo compartment fire extinguisher system drier metering unit

(DMU)inlet, affecting the system effectiveness and, consequently, making the fire extinguishing capability at those compartments inadequate should a fire erupt. The MCAI requires installation of a debris strainer at the DMU inlet. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 170-26-0002, dated November 11, 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 75 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $24,000, or $320 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. *For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:* 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27508; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-252-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by April 11, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes in operation; certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The MCAI states that it has been found the occurrence of one case of obstruction at the cargo compartment fire extinguisher system drier metering unit

(e)Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, install a debris strainer at the DMU inlet, in accordance with the detailed instructions and procedures described in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-26-0002, dated November 11, 2005. Record compliance with this AD in the applicable maintenance log book. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No Differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, *ATTN:* Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.

(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(g)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-01-03, effective February 7, 2006; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-26-0002, dated November 11, 2005; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4373 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27071; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-004-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Models C90A, B200, B200C, B300, and B300C Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2006-23-02 which applies to certain Raytheon Aircraft Company

(RAC)(formerly Beech) Models C90A, B200, B200C, B300, and B300C airplanes. AD 2006-23-02 currently requires you to inspect the flight controls for improper assembly or damage, and if any improperly assembled or damaged flight controls are found, take corrective action. Since we issued AD 2006-23-02, we have determined the need to add airplane serial numbers that were not previously included in the applicability. Consequently, this proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 2006-23-02 and add airplane serial numbers to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct improperly assembled or damaged flight controls, which could result in an unsafe condition by reducing capabilities of the flight controls and lead to loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 11, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment 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 20590-0001. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; *telephone:*

(800)429-5372 or

(316)676-3140. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris B. Morgan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; *telephone:*

(316)946-4154; *fax:*

(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2007-27071; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-004-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 we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion A report from an FAA Manufacturing Inspection District Office that describes numerous nonconformities during the manufacture of RAC Models C90A, B200, B200C, B300, and B300C airplanes caused us to issue AD 2006-23-02, Amendment 39-14814 (71 FR 65390, November 8, 2006). AD 2006-23-02 currently requires that you inspect the flight controls for improper assembly or damage, and if any improperly assembled or damaged flight controls are found, take corrective action on certain RAC Models C90A, B200, B200C, B300, and B300C airplanes. Since issuing AD 2006-23-02, we have determined the need to add airplane serial numbers that were not previously included in the applicability. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an unsafe condition by reducing capabilities of the flight controls. Relevant Service Information *We have reviewed:* —Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin Number SB 27-3761, Issued: February 2006; and —Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin Number SB 27-3761, Issued: February 2006, Revised: December 2006. This revision adds additional serial numbers to the effectivity. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the flight control systems to ensure conformity with type design and correct the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-23-02 with a new AD that would retain the actions of AD 2006-23-02 and add airplane serial numbers to the applicability. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information We are requiring all phases of the flight control system be inspected at one time. The service information as presented allows some sections of the system to go 800 hours time-in-service before they are scheduled for inspection. We feel this time is excessive to allow potential safety items and nonconformities to exist. We have determined that the proposed compliance time will not inadvertently ground the affected airplanes. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 138 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 80 work-hours × $80 per hour = $6,400 Not Applicable $6,400 $883,200 We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need any corrective action that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive

(AD)2006-23-02, Amendment 39-14814 (71 FR 76575, December 21, 2006), and adding the following new AD: **Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly Beech):** Docket No. FAA-2007-27071; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-004-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by May 11, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-23-02, Amendment 39-14814. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category:

(1)Group 1 Airplanes (maintains the actions from AD 2006-23-02): Model Serial numbers

(i)C90A LJ-1697 through LJ-1726, LJ-1728, LJ-1729, and LJ-1731 through LJ-1739

(ii)B200 BB-1827 through BB-1912

(iii)B200C BL-148 and BL-149

(iv)B300 FL-379 through FL-423, FL-426, FL-428 through FL-450, and FL-452

(v)B300C FM-11

(2)Group 2 Airplanes: Model C90A, serial numbers LJ-1741 through LJ-1743. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from our determination to add airplane serial numbers that were not previously included in the applicability. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct improperly assembled or damaged flight controls, which could result in an unsafe condition by reducing capabilities of the flight controls and lead to loss of control of the airplane. Compliance

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

(1)Inspect the entire flight control system for improper assembly and any damage

(i)*For Group 1 Airplanes:* At whichever of the following occurs first:

(A)Within 100 hours time-in-service

(TIS)after December 13, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-23-02); or

(B)At the next annual inspection that occurs at least 30 days after December 13, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-23-02). Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin Number SB 27-3761, Issued: February 2006; or Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin Number SB 27-3761, Issued: February 2006, Revised: December 2006.

(ii)*For Group 2 Airplanes:* At whichever of the following occurs first:

(A)Within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD; or

(B)At the next annual inspection that occurs at least 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(2)If you find any improperly assembled or damaged flight controls as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, take corrective action as specified in the service information Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin Number SB 27-3761, Issued: February 2006; or Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin Number SB 27-3761, Issued: February 2006, Revised: December 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Chris B. Morgan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; *telephone:*

(316)946-4154; *fax:*

(316)946-4107, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(g)AMOCs approved for AD 2006-23-02 are approved for this AD. Related Information

(h)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; *telephone:*

(800)429-5372 or

(316)676-3140. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-27071; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-004-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 6, 2007. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4404 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27509; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-201-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 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 Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for wear of the attachment holes of the control levers of the braking system and applicable corrective actions. This proposed AD results from a report that, after landing, the flightcrew of a Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplane noted that an extreme difference in pedal angle was required to achieve equal braking action. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of one or more brake control levers, which could result in uncommanded braking and loss of control of the airplane during takeoff, landing, or taxiing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 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 Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1137; fax

(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27509; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-201-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone

(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands (CAA-NL), which is the airworthiness authority for the Netherlands, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The CAA-NL advises of a report that, after landing, the flightcrew of a Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplane noted that an extreme difference in pedal angle was required to achieve equal braking action; concurrently, the temperature of the left-hand braking system was noted to be considerably higher than the right-hand braking system. Investigation revealed that the attachment holes of the control levers of the braking system were worn to the point of imminent failure. The airplane and affected levers had accumulated 15,583 total flight cycles and 21,460 total flight hours. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of one or more brake levers, which could result in uncommanded braking and loss of control of the airplane during take-off, landing, or taxiing. Relevant Service Information Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-142, dated August 12, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting for wear of the attachment holes of the control levers of the braking system and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include replacing the control levers with new control levers at times determined by the level of wear found during the inspection. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The CAA-NL mandated the service information and issued Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-011, dated August 31, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in the Netherlands and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA-NL has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA-NL's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Among the Proposed AD, the Dutch Airworthiness Directive, and the Service Information.” Differences Among the Proposed AD, the Dutch Airworthiness Directive, and the Service Information The Fokker service bulletin and the Dutch airworthiness directive describe a one-time inspection for wear of the attachment holes of the control levers. However, we have determined that confusion might occur regarding the inspection of any replacement control levers. Therefore, this proposed AD would require inspecting any replacement control lever for wear of the attachment holes, at an interval not to exceed 12,000 flight hours after the installation of any such lever, and applicable corrective actions thereafter, as described by the service information. The service bulletin refers to a “detailed visual inspection” for wear of the attachment holes of the control levers. We have determined that the procedures in the service bulletin should be described as a “detailed inspection.” We have included a definition of this type of inspection in Note 1 of this proposed AD. Where the service bulletin specifies immediate replacement of the control lever if the applicable remaining material (dimension X2) of the attachment hole is less than 2.0 millimeters (0.08 inches), this proposed AD would direct operators to replace the control lever if dimension X2 is less than or equal to 2.0 millimeters. These differences have been coordinated with the CAA-NL. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $720, or $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Fokker Services B.V.:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27509; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-201-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 11, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from a report that, after landing, the flight crew of a Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplane noted that an extreme difference in pedal angle was required to achieve equal braking action. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of one or more brake control levers, which could result in uncommanded braking and loss of control of the airplane during takeoff, landing, or taxiing. Compliance

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

(f)Within 1,500 flight cycles or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform a detailed inspection for excessive wear of the brake control levers and do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with and at the times specified in Section 3, “Accomplishment Instructions,” of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-142, dated August 12, 2005. Repeat the requirements of this paragraph thereafter for any replacement control lever at an interval not to exceed 12,000 flight hours after the installation of such a control lever. Operators should note that, where the service bulletin specifies immediate replacement of the control lever if the applicable remaining material (dimension X2) of the attachment hole is less than 2.0 millimeters (0.08 inches), this AD requires replacing the control lever if dimension X2 is less than or equal to 2.0 millimeters. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information

(h)Dutch airworthiness directive NL-2005-011, dated August 31, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-4379 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27072 Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; St. Johns, AZ AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice proposes to modify the Class E airspace area at St. Johns, AZ. The establishment of an Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)to Runway 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ, has made this proposal necessary. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)IAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park makes this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)IAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 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 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-27072/Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-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 dispositions in person in the Docket 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 Western Terminal Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, telephone number

(310)725-6502. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Hope, System Support Specialist, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261; telephone

(310)725-6502. 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 the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-27072 Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. 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 **Federal Register** 's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . 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 document 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 procedures. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace area at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. The establishment of an Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Positioning System

(GPS)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)to Runway 32 at St. Johns Industry Air Park, St. Johns, AZ, has made this proposal necessary. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to contain aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)IAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the RNAV

(GPS)IAP to RWY 32 at St. Johns Industrial Air Park, St. Johns, AZ. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 60005 of FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is Incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in this 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. Therefore, this proposed regulation—(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 proposed rule would 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; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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 the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and Effective, September 15, 2006, is amended as follows: *Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth.* AWP AZ E5 St. Johns, AZ [Amended] St. Johns Industrial Air Park, AZ (Lat. 34°31′07″ N., long. 109°22′44″ W.) St. Johns VORTAC (Lat. 34°25′27″ N., long. 109°08′37″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 4.3 miles each side of the St. Johns VORTAC 296° radial extending from the St. Johns VORTAC to 23 miles northwest of the VORTAC, and that airspace beginning at lat. 34°23′30″ N., long. 109°14′30″ W., to lat. 34°22′00″ N., long. 109°20′00″ W., to lat. 34°26′00″ N., long. 109°21′00″ W., to the point of beginning. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 8.7 miles southeast and 6.1 miles northwest of the St. Johns VORTAC 067° and 247° radials, extending from the 7.8 miles northeast to 17.4 miles southwest of the VORTAC, excluding the portion within the state of New Mexico, and that airspace beginning at lat. 34°47′41″ N., long. 109°49′22″ W., to lat. 34°42′54″ N., long. 109°35′03″ W., to lat. 34°40′56″ N., long. 109°37′33″ W., to lat. 34°47′33″ N., long. 109°54′19″ W., to the point of beginning and that airspace bounded by lat. 34°37′06″ N., long. 109°48′33″ W., to lat. 34°28′39″ N., long. 109°27′29″ W., to lat. 34°26′21″ N., long. 109°41′35″ W., to lat. 34°33′51″ N., long. 19°52′12″ W., to the point of beginning. Issued in Los Angeles, California, on February 12, 2007. Teri L. Bristol, Acting Director of Terminal Operations, Western Service Area. [FR Doc. 07-1127 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

U.S. Code