Unknown. Final rule
70,604 words·~321 min read·
/register/2007/12/10/07-5983A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2007-12-10.xml --- 72 236 Monday, December 10, 2007 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES National Organic Program: National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances; petition submission guidelines, 69569-69572 E7-23880 PROPOSED RULES Avocados grown in South Florida, 69624-69628 E7-23827 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Forest Service PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 69999-70012 07-04634 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69642-69643 E7-23881 Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES National cooperative research notifications:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 69709 07-5996 Caterpillar Inc. et al., 69709 07-5997 Arts Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69691 E7-23855 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 69691-69696 E7-23877 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69696 07-5978 Commerce Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70013-70036 07-04540 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69647-69649 E7-23857 E7-23864 E7-23865 E7-23866 E7-23868 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69729-69733 07-5998 Defense Defense Department See Navy Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):
Semi-annual agenda, 70143-70145 07-04843 Semi-annual agenda, 70037-70040 07-04524 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Schedules of controlled substances: Oripavine; designation as basic class in Schedule II Correction, 69618 E7-23759 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69670-69671 E7-23895 E7-23896 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Special education and rehabilitative services— Children with disabilities; personnel development to improve services and results; correction, 69677 E7-23888 Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities Program, 69672-69677 E7-23878 Meetings:
National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 69677-69678 E7-23847 Employment Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: Boston Communications Group, Inc., et al., 69709-69711 E7-23795 Commonwealth Land Title Co., 69711-69712 E7-23796 Elixir Industries et al., 69712-69713 E7-23794 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70041-70042 07-04838 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
Maryland, 69621-69623 E7-23385 Grants and other Federal assistance: Tribal Clean Air Act authority— St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, NY; source-specific Federal implementation plan, 69618-69621 E7-23718 PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70117-70124 07-04839 NOTICES Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed settlements, etc.: Cadlerock Properties Site, CT, 69679-69680 E7-23879 Executive Executive Office of the President See Management and Budget Office FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness directives:
Agusta S.p.A., 69595-69598 E7-23637 Airbus, 69593-69595, 69598-69604, 69610-69614 E7-23457 E7-23462 E7-23673 E7-23682 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd., 69614-69616 E7-23601 Boeing, 69583-69591, 69600-69601 E7-23458 E7-23685 E7-23850 E7-23851 E7-23871 Dassault, 69608-69610 E7-23638 Eurocopter France, 69604-69606 E7-23605 Fokker, 69606-69607 E7-23636 McDonnell Douglas, 69591-69593 E7-23687 Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— ASPEN Avionics Inc. Model EFD 1000, 69579-69583 E7-23835 Cirrus Design Corp.
Model SR22 airplane, 69577-69579 E7-23852 Honda Aircraft Co., Model HA-420 Hondajet, 69572-69574 E7-23831 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.; Model PC/12/47E airplane, 69574-69576 E7-23837 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Saab, 69628-69630, 69635-69637 E7-23869 E7-23870 Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 69630-69635 E7-23860 Class D airspace, 69638-69640 07-5983 07-5985 Class D and E airspace, 69640-69641 07-5984 FCC Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70147-70191 07-04845 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69680-69688 E7-23808 E7-23810 E7-23818 E7-23825 FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69729-69733 07-5998 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 69688 07-6011 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70193-70194 07-04635 NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 69678-69679 E7-23849 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Hawaii County, HI, 69726-69727 07-5988 Federal Housing Federal Housing Finance Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 69688 07-6004 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70195-70197 07-04719 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69688-69689, 69729-69733 E7-23800 07-5998 Banks and bank holding companies:
Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 69689-69690 E7-23874 FTC Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70199-70201 07-04547 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69729-69733 07-5998 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Comprehensive conservation plans; availability, etc.: Souris River Basin National Wildlife Refuge, ND, 69703-69704 E7-23867 Endangered and threatened species: Incidental take permits— Charlotte County, FL;
Florida scrub-jay, 69704 E7-23876 Migratory bird permits: Raptors; use for abatement activities, 69705-69706 E7-23797 MISSING FOR: Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* New Mexico, 69649 E7-23900 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69643-69645 E7-23834 E7-23836 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Bridger-Teton National Forest, WY, 69645-69647 07-5994 GSA General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):
Semi-annual agenda, 70143-70145 07-04843 Semi-annual agenda, 70125-70127 07-05068 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Kansas City, MO; National Nuclear Security Administration plant; non-nuclear component procurement and manufacturing operations multistructure facility, 69690-69691 E7-23843 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Children and Families Administration See Indian Health Service See National Institutes of Health PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70043-70064 07-04897 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Transportation Security Administration See U.S.
Customs and Border Protection PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70065-70074 07-04898 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70075-70078 07-04516 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: New York, NY; East River Waterfront Esplanade and Piers Project; conformity determination, 69700-69701 E7-23832 Privacy Act; computer matching programs, 69701-69703 E7-23846 Privacy Act; systems of records, 69703 E7-23833 Indian Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Tribal-State Compacts approval;
Class III (casino) gambling: Fort Belknap Tribe, MT, 69706 E7-23885 Tulalip Tribe, WA, 69706 E7-23886 Indian Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69696-69697 07-5990 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export privileges, actions affecting: Koh Chong Tek, Ernest, 69649-69650 07-5986 Weibo, Xu, 69650-69652 07-5987 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Indian Affairs Bureau See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70079-70080 07-04836 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69652 E7-23848 Antidumping:
Fresh garlic from— China, 69652-69662 E7-23891 Pasta from— Italy, 69662-69663 E7-23892 Polyester staple fiber from— Korea, 69663-69666 E7-23894 Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from— India, 69666 E7-23890 Purified carboxymethylcellulose from— Sweden, 69667-69668 E7-23893 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division See Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70081-70085 07-04842 Labor Labor Department See Employment and Training Administration See Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70087-70093 07-04840 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; record of decision:
Casper Resource Management Plan, WY, 69706-69707 E7-23897 Meetings: Resource Advisory Councils— Southwest, 69707 E7-23863 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: European Union and United States; regulatory impact assessment guidelines on analysis of impacts on international trade and investment; joint report, 69719 E7-23856 Minerals Minerals Management Service NOTICES Royalty management: Federal oil and gas marginal properties; accounting and auditing relief;
States’ participation decisions, 69707-69708 E7-23889 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Semi-annual agenda, 70143-70145 07-04843 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69729-69733 07-5998 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda: Institute of Museum and Library Services, 70129-70130 07-04844 National Endowment for the Arts, 70131-70132 07-04519 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Motor vehicle defect proceedings; petitions, etc.:
McSwain, Richard H.; petition denied, 69727 E7-23853 Motor vehicle safety standards: Nonconforming vehicle importation eligibility determinations, 69727-69728 E7-23841 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 69698 E7-23844 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 69697-69698 07-5979 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69668-69669 E7-23858 E7-23862 Meetings:
Climate Change Science Program Product Development Committee for Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.3, 69669-69670 E7-23899 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 69708-69709 07-5995 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: GoodXense, Inc., 69670 E7-23859 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70203-70206 07-04522 NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico facility, Ponce, PR, 69716-69718 E7-23902 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Materials licenses; consolidated guidance— Commercial radiopharmacies; program-specific guidance, 69718-69719 E7-23905 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* MC Squared, Inc., 69714-69716 E7-23904 Occupational Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Occupational Safety and Health Federal Advisory Council, 69713-69714 E7-23882 Office Office of Management and Budget See Management and Budget Office Personnel Personnel Management Office PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70133-70134 07-04538 Regulatory Regulatory Information Service Center PROPOSED RULES Introduction to Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions; and The Regulatory Plan, 69735-69997 07-05122 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70207-70217 07-04637 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69719-69720 E7-23873 Securities:
Suspension of trading— Roanoke Technology Corp., 69720 07-6005 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 69720-69723 E7-23816 SBA Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70135-70140 07-04536 Social Social Security Administration RULES Organization and procedures: Official records and information; privacy and disclosure, 69616-69618 E7-23786 PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70141-70142 07-04633 NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 69723-69725 E7-23875 State State Department NOTICES Exchange Visitor Program:
Au pair requirements, 69725-69726 E7-23883 Surface Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Railroad services abandonment: Mid-Michigan Railroad, Inc., 69728-69729 E7-23838 TVA Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69726 E7-23828 Thrift Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69729-69733 07-5998 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Semi-annual agenda, 70095-70116 07-04899 Transportation Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Maritime and land transportation security:
Transportation Worker Identification Credential; enrollment— Various ports, 69698 E7-23903 Treasury Treasury Department See Comptroller of the Currency See Thrift Supervision Office Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Border Patrol Office; tactical infrastructure construction, operation, etc.— Rio Grande Valley sector, TX, 69699-69700 E7-23898 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 69733 E7-23872 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II-XXVII The Unified Agenda of the Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, 69735-70217 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 72 236 Monday, December 10, 2007 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 205 [Docket Number AMS-TM-07-0112; TM-06-04FR] RIN 0581-AC61 National Organic Program (NOP); Amendments to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (Crops and Livestock) AGENCY:
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA)National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List) regulations to reflect recommendations submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) by the National Organic Standards Board
(NOSB)on August 17, 2005. Consistent with the recommendations from the NOSB, this final rule adds one substance, along with any restrictive annotations, to two sections of the National List. This final rule also clarifies the use and prohibition of chitosan. DATES: This rule becomes effective December 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Pooler, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Telephone:
(202)720-3252; Fax:
(202)205-7808. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background. On December 21, 2000, the Secretary established, within the NOP (7 CFR part 205), the National List regulations (§§ 205.600 through 205.607). The National List regulations identify synthetic substances and ingredients that are allowed and nonsynthetic (natural) substances and ingredients that are prohibited for use in organic production and handling. Under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended, (7 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.* ), the National List can be amended by the Secretary based on proposed amendments developed by the NOSB. Since established, the National List has been amended five times, October 31, 2003 (68 FR 61987), November 3, 2003 (68 FR 62215), October 21, 2005 (70 FR 61217), September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53299), and June 27, 2007 (72 FR 35137). Additionally, an amendment to the National List, proposed on July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40624), is currently pending. This final rule amends the National List to reflect recommendations submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB on August 17, 2005. On that date the NOSB recommended that the Secretary add one substance to § 205.601 and § 205.603 of the National List regulations. II. Overview of Amendments The following provides an overview of the amendments made to designated sections of the National List regulations: Section 205.601 Synthetic Substances Allowed for Use in Organic Crop Production This final rule amends paragraph
(e)of § 205.601 of the National List regulations by adding Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling. Section 205.603 Synthetic Substances Allowed for Use in Organic Livestock Production This final rule amends paragraph
(b)of § 205.603 of the National List regulations by adding Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling. III. Related Documents One notice was published regarding the meeting of the NOSB and its deliberations on recommendations and substances petitioned for amending the National List. Substances and recommendations included in this final rule were announced for NOSB deliberation in **Federal Register** Notice 70 FR 43116, July 26, 2005, and published as a proposed rule on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37854). IV. Statutory and Regulatory Authority The OFPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.* ), authorizes the Secretary to make amendments to the National List based on proposed amendments developed by the NOSB. Sections 6518(k)(2) and 6518(n) of OFPA authorize the NOSB to develop proposed amendments to the National List for submission to the Secretary and establish a petition process by which persons may petition the NOSB for the purpose of having substances evaluated for inclusion on or deletion from the National List. The National List petition process is implemented under § 205.607 of the NOP regulations. The current petition process (72 FR 2167, January 18, 2007) can be accessed through the NOP Web site at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.* A. Executive Order 12866 This action has been determined not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. B. Executive Order 12988 Executive Order 12988 instructs each executive agency to adhere to certain requirements in the development of new and revised regulations in order to avoid unduly burdening the court system. This proposed rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect. States and local jurisdictions are preempted under the OFPA from creating programs of accreditation for private persons or State officials who want to become certifying agents of organic farms or handling operations. A governing State official would have to apply to USDA to be accredited as a certifying agent, as described in § 2115(b) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6514(b)). States are also preempted under §§ 2104 through 2108 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6503 through 6507) from creating certification programs to certify organic farms or handling operations unless the State programs have been submitted to, and approved by, the Secretary as meeting the requirements of the OFPA. Pursuant to section 2108(b)(2) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6507(b)(2)), a State organic certification program may contain additional requirements for the production and handling of organically produced agricultural products that are produced in the State and for the certification of organic farm and handling operations located within the State under certain circumstances. Such additional requirements must:
(a)Further the purposes of the OFPA,
(b)not be inconsistent with the OFPA,
(c)not be discriminatory toward agricultural commodities organically produced in other States, and
(d)not be effective until approved by the Secretary. Pursuant to section 2120(f) of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6519(f)), this proposed rule would not alter the authority of the Secretary under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), the Poultry Products Inspections Act (21 U.S.C. 451 *et seq.* ), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 *et seq.* ), concerning meat, poultry, and egg products, nor any of the authorities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.* ), nor the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq.* ). Section 2121 of the OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6520) provides for the Secretary to establish an expedited administrative appeals procedure under which persons may appeal an action of the Secretary, the applicable governing State official, or a certifying agent under this title that adversely affects such person or is inconsistent with the organic certification program established under this title. The OFPA also provides that the U.S. District Court for the district in which a person is located has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's decision. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) requires agencies to consider the economic impact of each rule on small entities and evaluate alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the rule without unduly burdening small entities or erecting barriers that would restrict their ability to compete in the market. The purpose is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to the action. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the RFA, the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)performed an economic impact analysis on small entities in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548). AMS has also considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. The impact on entities affected by this final rule would not be significant. The effect of this final rule would be to allow the use of additional substances in agricultural production and handling. This action would relax the regulations published in the final rule and would provide small entities with more tools to use in day-to-day operations. AMS concludes that the economic impact of this addition of allowed substances, if any, would be minimal and entirely beneficial to small agricultural service firms. Accordingly, USDA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small agricultural service firms, which include producers, handlers, and accredited certifying agents, have been defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000 and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. This final rule would have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. organic industry at the end of 2001 included nearly 6,949 certified organic crop and livestock operations. Data on the numbers of certified organic handling operations (any operation that transforms raw product into processed products using organic ingredients) were not available at the time of survey in 2001; but they were estimated to be in the thousands. By the end of 2006, the number of certified organic crop, livestock, and handling operations totaled over 14,800 operations based on reports by certifying agents to the NOP as part of their annual reporting requirements. AMS believes that most of these entities would be considered small entities under the criteria established by the SBA. U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1 billion in 1990 to an estimated $12.2 billion in 2004, $13.8 billion in 2005, and nearly $17 billion in 2006. The organic industry is viewed as the fasting growing sector of agriculture, representing almost 3 percent of overall food and beverage sales. Since 1990, organic retail sales have historically demonstrated a growth rate between 20 to 24 percent each year including a 22 percent increase in 2006. In addition, USDA has 98 accredited certifying agents
(ACAs)who provide certification services to producers and handlers. A complete list of names and addresses of accredited certifying agents may be found on the NOP Web site, at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.* AMS believes that most of these entities would be considered small entities under the criteria established by the SBA. D. Paperwork Reduction Act No additional collection or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on the public by this final rule. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required by section 350(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* , or OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. E. Discussion of Comments Received Eleven
(11)comments were received on proposed rule TM-06-04. Comments were submitted by two
(2)non-profit organizations, one
(1)state department of agriculture, one
(1)private certifying agent, and seven
(7)consumers. One additional consumer comment was received but because it addresses grass fed beef it was not considered in this rulemaking. The comments can be viewed at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/PublicComments/NLAmendmentsCrops&LSTM=06=04/PublicCommentsCrops&LivestockTM=06=04.html* . Sucrose Octanoate Esters The seven
(7)consumer comments opposed adding sucrose octanoate esters
(SOE)to §§ 205.601 and 205.603 on the grounds that they oppose the use of pesticides. Two other commenters favored the addition of SOE to §§ 205.601 and 205.603. The remaining two
(2)commenters did not address the addition of SOE and were assumed to take no position regarding its addition to §§ 205.601 and 205.603. The seven
(7)consumer comments provided brief statements of opposition, to adding sucrose octanoate esters, expressed as one or more of the following reasons:
(1)Organic implies that no pesticides were used,
(2)the evidence cited is not convincing that sucrose is safe,
(3)organic does and should indicate that the substance is unaltered,
(4)no pesticides should be allowed in food labeled certified organic,
(5)do not favor pollution of organic standards,
(6)if special warnings come with the synthetic how can it be used in organic production, and
(7)people who buy organic foods do so because they want food that is free of substances they would not normally ingest. We have considered these comments. The OFPA and NOP regulations allow for the use of certain pesticides that have been reviewed and evaluated for inclusion on the National List by the NOSB. In organic crop and livestock production, insect pests are controlled primarily through management practices including physical, mechanical, and biological controls. When these practices are not sufficient, a biological, botanical, or synthetic substance approved for use on the National List may be used. To be added to the National List the OFPA requires that the NOSB review the substance against the criteria established under 7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518. At its August 17, 2005, meeting in Washington, DC, the NOSB evaluated SOE against the evaluation criteria of 7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the OFPA, received public comment, and concluded that SOE is consistent with the OFPA evaluation criteria. Accordingly, the NOSB recommended adding SOE to the National List for use in organic crop and livestock production as an insecticide/miticide. SOE was petitioned for use in organic crop and livestock production as an insecticide/miticide. SOE exists as an amber-colored liquid. The mixture of esters is manufactured from two biochemicals—sucrose (table sugar) and an octanoic acid ester (commonly found in plants and animals). The active ingredient acts by dissolving the waxy protective coating (cuticle) of target pests, causing the insect or mite to dry out and die. Under FIFRA, the EPA has registered SOE as a biochemical that targets mites and certain soft-bodied insects (e.g., aphids) at three distinct commercial sites: Food and non-food crops, including certain ornamentals; media for growing mushrooms; and adult honey bees ( *http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/factsheets/factsheet_035300.htm* ). In assessing risks to human health, the EPA has concluded that no risks to humans are expected from the use of SOE as a pesticide active ingredient. SOE are not toxic to mammals, but in high concentrations, they are corrosive to the eye. To avoid irreversible eye damage, exposed workers are required to wear appropriate protective clothing. In assessing risks to the environment, the EPA determined that no risks to the environment are expected from the use of SOE in pesticide products because:
(a)The esters biodegrade rapidly and therefore do not persist in the environment,
(b)the esters are not toxic to mammals or other non-target organisms,
(c)organisms are already exposed because these sucrose esters are found in plants, and
(d)the tiny amounts used in pesticide products are not expected to substantially increase the amount of these esters in the environment. The NOP consulted with the EPA and Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)to ensure that the NOSB recommendation for the use of SOE in organic crop and livestock production would be consistent with Federal regulations governing the use of the substance. The EPA informed the NOP that the recommended use of SOE in organic crop and livestock production is consistent with EPA regulations. The FDA likewise confirmed that the referenced sucrose octanoate ester product is appropriately licensed by the EPA for its use. In consideration of the preceding information the NOP has decided to add SOE to §§ 205.601 and 205.603. Chitosan In the July 3, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 37854), the NOP stated it “will not propose to specifically add chitosan to the National List as an adjuvant, it is already permitted for use at § 205.601(m) of the National List regulations.” Comments were received regarding this statement and, as a result, the NOP is clarifying the use and prohibition of chitosan in organic agriculture. Chitosan (Poly-D Glucosamine) (CAS #-9012-76-04) was petitioned for use in organic crop production as an adhesive adjuvant to be used with fungicides approved for use under the NOP regulations. At its August 17, 2005, meeting in Washington, DC, the NOSB recommended adding chitosan to the National List for use in organic crop production as an insecticide, with the restriction that it only be used as an adjuvant. In this open meeting, the NOSB evaluated chitosan against the evaluation criteria of 7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518 of the OFPA, received public comment, and concluded that chitosan is consistent with the OFPA evaluation criteria. The NOSB recommended restricting the use of chitosan to an adjuvant only, due to the fact that chitosan could also be used as a plant defense booster and plant growth enhancer. The NOP consulted with the EPA concerning the NOSB's recommendation to include chitosan on the National List for use as an adjuvant. The EPA stated that, in addition to chitosan being registered as an active ingredient, it is also approved as an EPA List 4B inert ingredient. The EPA further informed the NOP that chitosan, used as an adjuvant, would be considered an inert ingredient. The NOP regulations, at § 205.601(m), permits the use of EPA List 4 inert ingredients with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances approved for use under the NOP regulations as an active pesticide ingredient. As a result, the NOP stated “it will not propose to specifically add chitosan to the National List as an adjuvant; it is already permitted for use at § 205.601(m) of the National List regulations.” The two
(2)non-profit organizations, one
(1)state department of agriculture, and one
(1)private certifying agent commented on the decision not to add chitosan for use in organic crop production as an adhesive adjuvant to be used with fungicides approved for use under the NOP regulations. The commenters did not oppose NOP's decision but requested further explanation and elaboration on the factors that led to that determination. One commenter agreed that chitosan should be considered approved for use as a List 4 inert ingredient under 205.601(m)(l). The commenter believed that such an interpretation would allow for the use of chitosan as an inert ingredient when it is a component of a final product, e.g. listed as an inert ingredient in a Brand Name material and functions as an adjuvant. However, the same commenter noted that the NOP proposal to not specifically add chitosan to the National List may pose challenges for some organic operators in some states because a spray “adjuvant” (inert ingredient) may be regulated as a “pesticide” (active ingredient) in varying states. As a result, the commenter suggested that the NOP modify language in 205.601
(m)to explicitly recognize that “adjuvants classified by the EPA,” along with inerts, are allowed to be combined with nonysnthetic or synthetic substances approved for use in organic production. We considered all of the comments. In addition to the comments, we consulted further with the EPA concerning the use of chitosan as an adjuvant. The EPA confirmed, as they had before, that chitosan, in addition to its approved use as an active ingredient and plant defense booster/plant growth regulator (enhancer), is also approved as an EPA List 4B inert ingredient. It also reiterated that chitosan could be used as an adjuvant and that adjuvants are considered inert ingredients under the EPA. However, in cases where chitosan would be combined with a fungicide, chitosan could not be considered an inert ingredient or adjuvant, because chitosan has active fungicidal properties and is labeled for use against fungal diseases such as blight. The EPA also commented that for chitosan to be considered an inert or adjuvant in a formulation, it could not exhibit pesticidal activity. In that regard, the EPA determined that it could not verify that chitosan does not have any fungicidal activity for the intended use and at the proposed levels mentioned in the petition; data does not support its non-fungicidal activity in such a use. In addition to the concerns raised about chitosan's use as an adjuvant in combination with another fungicide, the issue of whether chitosan should be considered an insecticide (as recommended by the NOSB) or a plant disease control was mentioned. The EPA informed the NOP that data does not reveal chitosan having insecticidal properties. Instead, chitosan is considered more of a systemic acquired response inducer and demonstrates fungicidal activity. As a result, for the purpose of the NOP regulations, chitosan would be better characterized as a plant disease control. Based on the information submitted through public comment and gathered in further consultation with the EPA, we have determined that chitosan, when used in combination with another fungicide, cannot be considered an inert or adjuvant. It is considered an active ingredient in such cases. However, in cases where chitosan is used in combination with an approved active ingredient on the National List and does not demonstrate any pesticidal/fungicidal activity, it could be considered an inert ingredient or adjuvant. The preceding chitosan discussion is summarized as follows: Chitosan was petitioned for use in organic crop production as an adhesive “adjuvant” to be used with fungicides approved for use under the NOP regulations. The NOSB recommended adding chitosan to the National List for use in organic crop production as an “insecticide,” with the restriction that it only be used as an “adjuvant.” The EPA informed the NOP that data does not reveal chitosan having insecticidal properties. Because the NOSB recommended the use of chitosan as an adjuvant, the recommendation restricts the use of the substance to the capacity of an inert ingredient. AMS, in consultation with EPA, has determined that chitosan, when used as an “adjuvant” (not demonstrating any pesticidal activity), is already allowed under the existing inert ingredient provisions of § 205.601(m) of the NOP regulations. However, chitosan, when used in combination with a fungicide, cannot be considered an inert or adjuvant, because chitosan has fungicidal properties and is considered an active ingredient in such cases. Accordingly, unless specifically added to § 205.601 of the National List as an active ingredient, chitosan cannot be used with a fungicide. Therefore, AMS has decided to refer the chitosan recommendation back to the NOSB so that it can reconsider the intended use of the substance and its inclusion on the National List (i.e., should it be considered a plant disease control; and should it be included on the National List as an approved active ingredient?). In the meantime, chitosan, under the inert ingredient provisions of § 205.601(m) of the NOP regulations, can be used as an “adjuvant” (not demonstrating any pesticidal activity) in combination with approved active ingredients on the National List, provided the approved active ingredient is not a registered fungicide. Chitosan, when used in combination with a fungicide, is an active ingredient and remains a prohibited substance that shall not be used in organic agriculture. Further, chitosan remains prohibited for use as a plant defense booster, a plant growth enhancer, and as an active ingredient in any other capacity. If readers have questions concerning when a substance qualifies to be an active or inert ingredient, they should contact the EPA for further information and guidance. F. Effective Date This final rule reflects recommendations submitted to the Secretary by the NOSB. The substance being added to the National List was based on a petition from the industry and evaluated by the NOSB using criteria in the Act and the regulations. Because this substance is crucial to organic crop and livestock production operations, producers should be able to use them in their operations as soon as possible. Accordingly, AMS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 205 Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Animals, Archives and records, Imports, Labeling, Organically produced products, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seals and insignia, Soil conservation. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 205, subpart G is amended as follows: PART 205—NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 205 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522. 2. Section 205.601 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(9) to read as follows: § 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
(e)* * *
(9)Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling. 3. Section 205.603 is amended by adding new paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows: § 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.
(b)* * *
(7)Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling. Dated: December 5, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-23880 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE277, Special Condition 23-217-SC] Special Conditions; Honda Aircraft Company Model HA-420 Hondajet; Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued to Honda Aircraft Company, for a Type Certificate for the HA-420 Hondajet airplane. This airplane will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of electronic flight instrument system
(EFIS)displays Model G1000 manufactured by Garmin for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is November 30, 2007. Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE277, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE277. 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: Jim Brady, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-111), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816)329-4132. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE277.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On November 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company, made an application to the FAA for a new Type Certificate for the project airplane. The proposed aircraft incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the project aircraft meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the project: 14 CFR part 23 and FAR part 23, effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendments 23-1, dated July 29, 1965, through Amendment 23-55, dated March 1, 2002. Environmental Standards: FAR part 36, effective March 11, 1994, as amended by Amendment 36-1, dated December 1, 1969 through Amendment 36-27, dated September 6, 2005 FAR part 34, effective September 10, 1990, as amended by Amendment 34-1, dated July 31, 1995 through Amendment 34-3, dated February 3, 1999 as applicable, and § 23.1301 of Amendment 23-20; §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-49; and § 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice 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 applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features Honda Aircraft Company plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. Protection of Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF): Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions. Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment. These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below: 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 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square
(rms)values. or,
(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions, whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Hondajet HA-420 project. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the 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 on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17 and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Hondajet HA-420 manufactured by Honda Aircraft Company. 1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on November 30, 2007. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23831 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE276, Special Condition 23-216-SC] Special Conditions; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.; Model PC-12/47E; Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., for an Amended Type Certificate for the Model PC-12/47E airplane. This airplane will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of electronic flight instrument system
(EFIS)displays Model APEX manufactured by Honeywell for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is November 30, 2007. Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE276, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE276. 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: Jim Brady, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-111), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816)329-4132. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE276.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On Nov. 10, 2003, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., made an application to the FAA for a new Amended Type Certificate for the project airplane. The PC-12/47 is currently approved under TC No. A78EU. The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. must show that the project aircraft meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the project: 14 CFR 21.29, 21.183(c) and 14 CFR part 23, Normal Category, effective February 4, 1991, including Amendments 23-1 through 23-42 and § 23.1305c)3) of Amendment 23-43 and § 23.1507 of Amendment 23-45 and § 23.1311 of Amendment 23-49 and 14 CFR part 36, effective November 18, 1969, including Amendments 36-1 through amendment in effect at the time of U.S. Type Certification, and 14 CFR part 34, effective September 10, 1990, and Equivalent Level of Safety, a) ACE-94-8 of June 21, 1994, Spin demonstration, FAR 23.221 a)2), b) Cabin pressure indicator, FAR 23.841b) 6), Section 611(b) of the FAA Act of 1958, Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR), manual pitch trim system annunciation, Special Conditions, High Energy Radiated Electromagnetic Fields, (HIRF), 23-ACE-46, effective date May 29, 1990, Approved for Flight Into Known Icing as applicable, and § 23.1301 of Amendment 23-20; §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-49; and § 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. Protection of Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF): Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions. Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment. These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below: 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 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square
(rms)values. or,
(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the PC-12/47E. Should Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the 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 on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for PC-12/47E Project airplane modified by Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. to add an EFIS. 1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on November 30, 2007. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23837 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE279, Special Condition 23-219-SC] Special Conditions; L-3 Communications Avionics Systems Model SmartDeck in Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22; Installation of Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS); Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued to L-3 Communications Avionics Systems, for a Supplemental Type Certificate for the Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22. This airplane will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of electronic flight instrument system
(EFIS)displays Model SmartDeck manufactured by L-3 Communications Avionics Systems for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is November 30, 2007. Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE279, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE279. 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: Jim Brady, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-111), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816)329-4132. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 279.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On February 27, 2007, L-3 Communications Avionics Systems, made an application to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate for the project airplane. The Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22 is currently approved under TC No. A00009CH. The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, L-3 Communications Avionics Systems must show that the project aircraft meets the following provisions, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the project: Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-53, except as follows: § 23.301 through Amendment 47; §§ 23.855, 23.1326, 23.1359, not applicable; FAR 36 dated December 1, 1969, as amended by current amendment as of the date of type Certification. Equivalent Safety Items: Equivalent Levels Of Safety finding (ACE-96-5) made per the provisions of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.221; refer to FAA ELOS letter dated June 10, 1998 for models SR20, SR22, Equivalent Levels Of Safety finding (ACE-00-09) made per the provisions of 14 CFR part 23, section 1143(g) and 23.1147(b); refer to FAA ELOS letter dated September 11, 2000 for model SR22. Equivalent Levels Of Safety finding (ACE-01-01) made per the provisions of 14 CFR Part 23, §§ 23.1143(g) and 23.1147(b); refer to FAA ELOS letter dated February 14, 2001 for model SR20. Refer to Special Conditions, 23-ACE-88 for ballistic parachute; 23-134-SC for protection of systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), 23-163-SC for inflatable restraint system; and § 23.1301 of Amendment 23-20; §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-49; and § 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the supplemental type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101 (b)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features L-3 Communications Avionics Systems plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. Protection of Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF): Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions. Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment. These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below: 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 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square
(rms)values. or,
(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions, whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the SmartDeck project. Should L-3 Communications Avionics Systems apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the 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 on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Cirrus Design Corporation Model SR22 project airplane modified by L-3 Communications Avionics Systems to add an EFIS. 1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on November 30, 2007. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23852 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE278, Special Condition 23-218-SC] Special Conditions; ASPEN Avionics Inc. Model EFD 1000; Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS); Protection of Systems for High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued to ASPEN Avionics Inc., for a Supplemental Type Certificate for the models listed under the heading “Type Certification Basis” under the Approved Model List Process. These airplanes will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and unusual design features include the installation of electronic flight instrument system
(EFIS)displays Model EFD 1000 manufactured by ASPEN Avionics Inc., for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these airplanes. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is November 30, 2007. Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE278, Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked: Docket No. CE278. 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: Jim Brady, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-111), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816)329-4132. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 278.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On June 26, 2007, ASPEN Avionics Inc., made an application to the FAA for a new Supplemental Type Certificate under the Approved Model List Process for the project airplanes. The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital avionics consisting of an EFIS that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.101, ASPEN Avionics Inc., must show that the affected airplane models, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions, of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Numbers listed below or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the original “type certification basis” and can be found in the Type Certificate Numbers listed below. In addition, the type certification basis of airplane models that embody this modification will include section § 23.1301 of Amendment 23-20; §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-49; and § 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. Aircraft make Aircraft model(s) Type certificate No. Certification basis Class 1 or 2 Aermacchi S.p.A (Siai Marchetti) S.205-18/F, S.205-18/R, S.205-20/F, S.205-20/R, S.205-22/R, S.208, S.208A A9EU FAR 23 1 F.260, F.260B, F.260C, F.260D, F.260E, F.260F A10EU CAR 3 1 Aero Commander (Dynac Aerospace Corp) 10, 10A, 100, 100A, 100-180 1A21 CAR 3 1 Aeronautica Macchi S.p.A (Macchi) AL 60, AL 60-B, AL 60-F5, AL 60-C5 AM-3 7A12 A19EU CAR 3 FAR 23 1 1 Aerostar Aircraft Corp. (Piper Aerostar) 360, 400 A11WE FAR 23 2 American Champion 402 8KCAB, 8GCBC A3CE A21CE CAR 3 FAR 23 2 1 Aviat (Sky International) A-1, A-1A, A-1B S-1S, S-1T, S-2, S-2A, S-2B, S-2C, S-2S A22NM A8SO FAR 23 FAR 23 1 1 Bellanca (Alexandria Aircraft LLC) 14-19, 14-19-2, 14-19-3, 14-19-3A,17-30, 17-31, 17-31TC 1A3 CAR 3 1 17-30A, 17-31A, 17-31ATC A18CE FAR 23 1 Cessna 120, 140 A-768 CAR 3 1 140A 5A2 CAR 3 1 150, 150A, 150B, 150C, 150D, 150E, 150F, 150G,150H, 150J, 150K, 150L, 150M, A150K, A150L, A150M, 152, A152 3A19 CAR 3, FAR 23 1 170, 170A, 170B A-799 CAR 3 1 172, 172A, 172B, 172C, 172D, 172E, 172F, 172G,172H, 172I, 172K, 172L, 172M, 172N, 172P, 172Q,172R, 172S 3A12 CAR 3, FAR 23 1 172RG, P172D, R172E, R172F, R172G, R172H, R172J, R172K, 175, 175A, 175B, 175C 3A17 CAR 3 1 177, 177A, 177B A13CE FAR 23 1 177RG A20CE FAR 23 1 180, 180A,180B, 180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, 180K 5A6 CAR 3 1 182, 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 182E, 182F, 182G, 182H, 182J, 182K, 182L, 182M, 182N, 182P, 182Q, 182R, 182S, 182T, R182, T182, TR182, T182T 3A13 CAR 3, FAR 23 1 185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, A185F 3A24 CAR 3 1 190, 195, 195A, 195B A-790 CAR 3 1 210, 210A, 210B, 210C, 210D, 210E, 210F, T210F, 210G, T210G, 210H, T210H, 210J, T210J, 210K, T210K, 210L, T210L, 210M, T210M, 210N, P210N, T210N, 210R, P210R, T210R, 210-5, 210-5A 3A21 CAR 3 1 206, P206, P206A, P206B, P206C, P206D, P206E, TP206A, TP206B, TP206C, TP206D, TP206E, U206, U206A, U206B, U206C, U206D, U206E, U206F, U206G, TU206A, TU206B, TU206C, TU206D, TU206E, TU206F, TU206G, 206H, T206H A4CE CAR 3 1 207, 207A, T207, T207A A16CE FAR 23 1 T-303 (Crusader) A34CE FAR 23 2 310, 310A (USAF U-3A), 310B, 310C, 310D, 310E (USAF U-3B), 310F, 310G, 310H, E310H, 310I, 310J, 310J-1, E310J, 310K, 310L, 310N, 310P, T310P, 310Q, T310Q, 310R, T310R 3A10 2 320, 320A, 320B, 320C, 320D, 320E, 320F, 320-1, 335, 340, 340A 3A25 CAR 3 2 336 A2CE CAR 3 2 337, 337A , 337B, T337B, 337C, 337E, T337E, T337C, 337D, T337D, M337B, 337F, T337F, 337G, T337G, 337H, P337H, T337H, T337H-SP A6CE CAR 3, FAR 23 2 Cirrus Design Corp SR20, SR22 A00009CH FAR 23 1 Commander Aircraft Co 112, 112TC, 112B, 112TCA, 114, 114A, 114B, 114TC A12SO CAR 3 1 Cub Crafters CC18-180, CC18-180A A00006SE FAR 23 1 DeHavilland/Bombardier DHC-2 Mark I, DHC-2 Mark II, DHC-2 Mark III A-806 CAR 3 1 DH.C1, 21, 22, 22A A44EU FAR 21 1 Diamond Aircraft Company DA 20-A1, DA20-C1 DA 40 TA4CH A47CE FAR 23 FAR 23 1 1 Extra (Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH) EA300, EA300L, EA300S, EA300/200 EA-400 A67EU A43CE FAR 23 FAR 23 1 1 Found Aircraft Development, Inc FBA-2C, FBA-2C1 (Bush Hawk), FBA-2C2 (Bush Hawk XP) A7EA CAR 3, FAR 23 1 Gulfstream American Corporation G44, G44A, SCAN Type 30 A-734 CAR 4a 2 Grob-Werke G115, G115A, G115B, G115C, G115C2, G115D, G115D2, G115EG A57EU FAR 23 1 G120A A49CE FAR 23 1 Grumman American (Tiger Aircraft LLC) AA-1, AA-1A, AA-1B, AA-1C AA-5, AA-5A, AA-5B, AG-5B A11EA A16EA FAR 23 FAR 23 1 1 Hawker Beechcraft 35-33, 35-A33, 35-B33, 35-C33, 35-C33A, E33, E33A, E33C, F33, F33A, F33C, G33, H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35, V35, V35A, V35B, 36, A36, A36TC, B36TC 3A15 CAR 3 1 35, A35, B35, C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, 35R A-777 CAR 3 1 76 A29CE FAR 23 1 95, B95, B95A, D95A, E95, 95-55, 95-A55, 95-B55, 95-B55A, 95-B55B (T-42A), 95-C55, 95-C55A, D55, D55A, E55, E55A, 56TC, A56TC, 58, 58A 3A16 CAR 3, FAR 23 2 19A, B19, M19A, 23, A23, A23A, A23-19, A23-24, B23, C23, A24, A24R, B24R, C24R A1CE CAR 3 1 50, B50, C50, D50, D50A, D50B, D50C, D50E, D50E-5990, E50, F50, G50, H50, J50 5A4 CAR 3 2 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A) or (B-45), D45 (T-34B) 5A3 CAR 3 1 Helio (Alliance Aircraft Group, LLC) H-250, H-295, HT-295, H391, H391B, H-395, H-395A, H-700, H-800 1A8 CAR 3 1 HST-550, HST-550A A4EA CAR 3 1 500 A2EA CAR 3 2 King's Engineering Fellowship
(The)Model 44 4500-300, 4500-300 Series II A2WI A17CE FAR 23 FAR 23 2 2 Lake/Revo (Global Amphibians LLC) Colonial C-1, Colonial C-2, Lake LA-4, Lake LA-4A, Lake LA-4P, Lake LA-4-200, Lake Model 250 1A13 CAR 3 1 Lancair (Columbia Aircraft) LC40-550FG, LC41-550FG, LC42-550FG A00003SE FAR 23 1 Liberty Aerospace Incorporated XL-2 A00008DE FAR 23 1 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation 402-2 2A11 CAR 3 2 Luscombe Aircraft Corporation 11A, 11E A-804 CAR 3 1 Maule Bee Dee M-4, M-4, M-4C, M-4S, M-4T, M-4-180C, M-4-180S, M-4-180T, M-4-210, M-4-210C, M-4-210S, M-4-210T, M-4-220, M-4-220C, M-4-220S, M-4-220T, M-5-180C, M-5-200, M-5-210C, M-5-210TC, M-5-220C, M-5-235C, M-6-180, M-6-235, M-7-235, MX-7-235, MX-7-180, MX-7-420, MXT-7-180, MT-7-235, M-8-235, MX-7-160, MXT-7-160, MX-7-180A, MXT-7-180A, MX-7-180B, M-7-235B, M-7-235A, M-7-235C, MX-7-180C, M-7-260, MT-7-260, M-7-260C, M-7-420AC, MX-7-160C, MX-7-180AC, M-7-420A, MT-7-420 3A23 CAR 3 1 Mooney Aircraft Corp M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S 2A3 CAR 3 1 M22 A6SW CAR 3 1 Moravan (Moravan a.s.) ZLIN 562L ZLIN Z-242L, Z-143L A30EU A76EU FAR 23 FAR 23 1 1 Navion Aircraft Company, Ltd. (Navion) Navion, Navion A, Navion B, Navion D, Navion E, Navion F, Navion G, Navion H A-782 CAR 3 1 OMF (Ostmeck. Flugzeugbau GmbH) OMF-100-160 A46CE FAR 23 1 Partenavia (Vulcanair S.p.A.) P68, P68B, P68C, P68C-TC, P68 “Observer,” P68 “Observer 2,” P68 TC “Observer”, AP68TP 300 “Spartacus”, AP68TP 600 “Viator”, VA300 A31EU FAR 23 2 Pilatus Aircraft Limited PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-H2 7A15 CAR 3 1 PC-7 A50EU FAR 23 1 Piper (New Piper) PA-12, PA-12S PA-18, PA-18S, PA-18-105, PA-18S-105, PA-18A, PA-18-125, PA-18S-125, PA-18AS-125, PA-18-135, PA-18A-135, PA-18S-135, PA-18AS-135, PA-18-150, PA-18A-150, PA-18S-150, PA-18AS-150, PA-19, PA19S A-780 1A2 CAR 3 CAR 3 1 1 PA-20, PA-20S, PA-20-115, PA-20S-115, PA-20-135, PA-20S-135 1A4 CAR 3 1 PA-22, PA-22-108, PA-22-135, PA-22S-135, PA-22-150, PA-22S-150, PA-22-160, PA-22S-160 1A6 CAR 3 1 PA-23, PA-23-160, PA-23-235, PA-23-250 1A10 CAR 3 2 PA-24, PA-24-250 PA-24-260, PA-24-400 1A15 CAR 3 1 PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-151, PA-28-160, PA-28-161, PA-28-180, PA-28-235, PA-28S-160, PA-28-161, PA-28-181, PA-28-235, PA-28S-160, PA-28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, PA-28RT-201T, PA-28-201T, PA-28-236 2A13 CAR 3 1 PA-30, PA-39, PA-40 A1EA CAR 3 2 PA-32-260, PA-32-300, PA-32S-300, PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, PA-32RT-300T, PA-32R-301(SP), PA-32R-301(HP), PA-32R-301T, PA-32-301, PA-32-301T, PA-32-301FT, PA32-301XTC A3SO CAR 3 1 PA-34-200, PA-34-200T, PA-34-220T A7SO CAR 3 2 PA-44-180, PA-44-180T A19SO FAR 23 1 PA-46-310P, PA-46-350P, PA-46-500TP A25SO FAR 23 1 Prop-Jets, Inc 200, 200A, 200B, 200C, 200D, 400 3A18 CAR 3 1 PZL (Panstwowe Zaklady Lotnicze) PZL-104 WILGA 80, PZL-104M WILGA 2000, PZL-WARSZAWA PZL-KOLIBER 150A, PZL-KOLIBER 160A, A55EU A69EU FAR 23 FAR 23 1 1 PZL (PZL Mielec) PZL M20 03 PZL M26 01 A68EU A44CE FAR 23 FAR 23 2 1 Slingsby Aviation Ltd T67M260, T67M260-T3A A73EU FAR 23 1 SOCATA (SOCATA Groupe Aerospatiale) TB9, TB10, TB20, TB21, TB200 100S, 150ST, 150T, 235E, 235C MS880B, MS885, MS894A, MS893A, MS892A-150, MS892E-150, MS893E, MS894E A51EU 7A14 FAR 23 CAR 3 1 1 SOCATA (SOCATA Groupe Aerospatiale) GA-7 (Cougar) A17SO FAR 23 2 Stinson (Univair Aircraft Corporation) 108, 108-1, 108-2, 108-3, 108-5 A-767 CAR 3 1 Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation 500, 500-A, 500-B, 500-U, 500-S, 520, 560, 560-A, 560-E ATC 542 CAR 3 1 WACO Aircraft Company WACO YMF ATC 542 Aero 7A 1 Zenair Ltd CH2000 TA5CH FAR 23 1 Discussion If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel or unusual design features of an airplane, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 after public notice and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101 (b)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features ASPEN Avionics Inc., plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane. Protection of Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF): Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions. Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment. These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below: 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 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square
(rms)values. or,
(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, electrical field strength, from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term “critical” means those functions, whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to critical functions. Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to one modification to the aircraft models listed under the heading “Type Certification Basis.” Should ASPEN Avionics Inc., apply at a later date to extend this modification to include additional airplane models, the 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 on one modification to the aircraft models listed under the heading “Type Certification Basis.” It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the EFD 1000 EFIS manufactured by ASPEN Avionics Inc. 1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane. 2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on November 30, 2007. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23835 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28943; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-011-AD; Amendment 39-15295; AD 2007-25-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-300F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 767-300F series airplanes. This AD requires replacing the rotomolded duct(s) of the mix manifold system with new duct(s). This AD results from a report of failures of the duct joint seal of the mix manifold system. We are issuing this AD to prevent air conditioning leakage into the mix manifold bay. Such leakage could decrease the air flow to the flight compartment and main cabin or could allow smoke into the flight compartment in the event of a fire in the main cabin or forward cargo compartment. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey S. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6481; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767-300F series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 45980). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the rotomolded duct(s) of the mix manifold system with new duct(s). Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supports the NPRM. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 40 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 32 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions will take about 2 or 8 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $4,123 or $42,825 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $4,283 or $43,465 per airplane. (The estimated work hours and costs depend on the airplane configuration). Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-25-13 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15295. Docket No. FAA-2007-28943; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-011-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-300F series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-21-0192, dated March 23, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of failures of the duct joint seal of the mix manifold system. We are issuing this AD to prevent air conditioning leakage into the mix manifold bay. Such leakage could decrease the air flow to the flight compartment and main cabin or could allow smoke into the flight compartment in the event of a fire in the main cabin or forward cargo compartment. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Replacement
(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable action specified in Table 1 of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-21-0192, dated March 23, 2006. Table 1.—Replacement For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as— Do the following action—
(1)Group 1 airplanes Replace the rotomolded duct between the transition duct of the right cooling pack and the mix manifold with a new duct made of aluminum.
(2)Group 2 airplanes Replace the rotomolded ducts of the mix manifold system with new ducts made from Kevlar® and aluminum. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-21-0192, dated March 23, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23685 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0301; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-069-AD; Amendment 39-15300; AD 2007-25-18] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400 and 747-400D Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-400 and 747-400D series airplanes. For certain airplanes, this AD requires modifying the stowage bin ladder of zone E, installing new intercostals, removing existing tie rods, and installing new tie rods. For certain other airplanes, this AD requires modifying the lateral shear beam. This AD results from a report indicating that the overhead lateral shear beam aft of main entry door number 5 reacts to certain loads from the weight of the center stowage bins of zone E and additional loads. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of the center stowage bins of zone E at forward load levels less than 9g during an emergency landing, which could cause injury to passengers and/or crew and could impede subsequent rapid evacuation. DATES: This AD is effective December 26, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 26, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rene Buendia, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6448; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We have received a report indicating that a review, at Boeing, of the airplane interior loads on certain Boeing Model 747-400 and 747-400D series airplanes without a door 5 crew rest, showed that the overhead lateral shear beam aft of main entry door number 5 does not meet the 9g forward loading requirement. As a result, the overhead lateral shear beam at that door reacts to loads from the weight of the center stowage bins of zone E and to additional loads due to galleys, life raft boxes, closets, and partitions (depending on airplane configuration). This condition, if not corrected, could result in detachment of the center stowage bins of zone E at forward load levels less than 9g during an emergency landing, which could cause injury to passengers and/or crew and could impede subsequent rapid evacuation. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2498, dated December 19, 2006. For certain airplanes, the service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the stowage bin ladder of zone E by installing new tie rod fittings, installing new right and left intercostals, and removing existing tie rods. For certain other airplanes, the service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the lateral shear beam by installing additional stiffeners. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD No airplanes affected by this AD are on the U.S. Register. We are issuing this AD because the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the(se) same type design(s) that could be registered in the United States in the future. This AD requires modifying the stowage bin ladder of zone E, installing new intercostals, removing existing tie rods, and installing new tie rods. For certain other airplanes, this AD requires modifying the lateral shear beam. Since no airplanes are affected by this AD, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary. Costs of Compliance None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD for any affected airplane that might be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.- registered airplanes Modification of the stowage bin ladder, installation of intercostals, and replacement of tie rods (for Group 1 airplanes) 59 $80 $40,107 $44,827 0 Modification of the lateral shear beam (for Group 2 airplanes) 5 80 5,091 5,491 0 FAA's Determination of the Effective Date No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less than 30 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0301; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-069-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-25-18 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15300. Docket No. FAA-2007-0301; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-069-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective December 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400 and 747-400D series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2498, dated December 19, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report indicating that the overhead lateral shear beam aft of main entry door number 5 reacts to certain loads. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of the center stowage bins of zone E at forward load levels less than 9g during an emergency landing, which could cause injury to passengers and/or crew and could impede subsequent rapid evacuation. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Modification, Installation, and Replacement
(f)Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD by doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2498, dated December 19, 2006.
(1)For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in the service bulletin: Modify the stowage bin ladder of zone E, install new right and left intercostals, and remove existing tie rods and install new tie rods.
(2)For Group 2 airplanes, as identified in the service bulletin: Modify the lateral shear beam. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested, in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-53-2498, dated December 19, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 30, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23851 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0302; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-161-AD; Amendment 39-15301; AD 2007-25-19] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the forward and rear heat exchanger shells of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, and applicable corrective actions. This AD also requires an inspection to identify the part number, shop code, and build date of the forward and rear heat exchanger shells of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, and applicable corrective actions, which end the repetitive inspections. This AD results from a report of an uncommanded up and down pitch movement of an airplane in flight and resistance in the elevator controls on the ground during taxi. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking and buckling of the forward or rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, which could result in jamming of the rudder and/or elevator control cables and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 26, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 26, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mudrovich, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6477; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background We previously issued AD 2001-18-04, amendment 39-12430 (66 FR 46512, September 6, 2001), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect damage or deflection of the crew rest heat exchanger (forward heat exchanger only), and follow-on actions if necessary. That AD also requires a one-time inspection to determine the part number and shop code of the shell of the crew rest area heat exchanger (forward heat exchanger only), and follow-on actions if necessary, which terminate the repetitive inspections. Discussion Since issuance of AD 2001-18-04, we have received a report of uncommanded up and down pitch movement of an airplane in flight and resistance in the elevator controls on the ground during taxi on a Boeing Model 747-400 series airplane. An inspection revealed that the rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area had expanded and deformed inboard and downwards, contacting the elevator control cables, which restricted their movements. Another inspection revealed that the thickness of certain forward heat exchanger shells of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, including forward heater exchanger shell subject to the requirements of AD 2001-18-04, was incorrect. The incorrect shells were manufactured from two-ply laminate instead of three-ply laminate. Cracking and buckling of the forward or rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, if not corrected, could result in jamming of the rudder and/or elevator control cables and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Boeing has issued Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2007. The service bulletin describes the following procedures: • Repetitive general visual inspections of the forward and rear heat exchanger shells of the air distribution system of the crew rest area for discrepancies (i.e., cracks, creases, deformation, deflection, and interference with the rudder and/or elevator cables), and applicable corrective actions (Work Package 1). • An inspection to identify the part number, shop code, and build date of the forward and rear heat exchanger shells of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, and applicable corrective actions (Work Package 2). Accomplishing these actions eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections. The corrective actions include replacing any discrepant forward or rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area with a certain new heat exchanger shell, measuring the shell material thickness, repairing holes, re-marking the part number of the forward heat exchanger shell, and making sure the ten common fasteners are fully installed; as applicable. The compliance time specified in the service bulletin for accomplishing Work Package 1 is 1,200 flight hours or 90 days, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours. The compliance time specified in the service bulletin for accomplishing Work Package 2 is 24 months. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the U.S. at some time in the future. Therefore, we are issuing this AD to prevent cracking and buckling of the forward or rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, which could result in jamming of the rudder and/or elevator control cables and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Differences Between This AD and Service Information For Work Package 1, Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, Revision 2, specifies a compliance time of 1,200 flight hours or 90 days for accomplishing both the general visual inspections and replacement of the heat exchanger shells if necessary. We have determined that, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with cracking, any cracked heat exchanger shell must be replaced before further flight. Therefore, for Work Package 1, this AD requires that the applicable corrective actions for that work package, which include replacement of any discrepant forward or rear heat exchanger shell, be done before further flight. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing. Costs of Compliance None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes affected by this AD are currently operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, we consider this AD necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed if any affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD for any affected airplane that might be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Inspection (Work Package 1) Between 1 and 3 1 $80 Between $80 and $240, per inspection cycle. Inspection (Work Package 2) Between 1 and 3 1 80 Between $80 and $240. 1 Depending on the airplane configuration. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date No airplane affected by this AD is currently on the U.S. Register. Therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary before this AD is issued, and this AD may be made effective in less than 30 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0302; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-161-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-25-19 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15301. Docket No. FAA-2007-0302; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-161-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective December 26, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of an uncommanded up and down pitch movement of an airplane in flight and resistance in the elevator controls on the ground during taxi. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking and buckling of the forward or rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, which could result in jamming of the rudder and/or elevator control cables and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections and Corrective Actions
(f)At the applicable times specified in the Table 1 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2007, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(1)Do repetitive general visual inspections to detect discrepancies (i.e., cracks, creases, deformation, deflection, and interference with the rudder and/or elevator cables) of the forward and rear heat exchanger shells of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, and do the applicable corrective actions, until the actions required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD are done. The applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight.
(2)Do an inspection to identify the part number, shop code, and build date of the forward and rear heat exchanger shells of the air distribution system of the crew rest area, and before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions. Accomplishing these actions ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(g)Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2007, specifies a compliance time “after the release date of the service bulletin” or “after the date of Revision 02 of the service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Actions According to Previous Issues of Service Bulletin or Previously Accomplished Inspections
(h)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, dated November 3, 2005; or Boeing Service Bulletin 74721A2439, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2006; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.
(i)If a forward heat exchanger shell, part number 65B41601-52, is found installed during the replacement required by paragraph
(c)of AD 2001-18-04, amendment 39-12430, or was installed during the inspection required by paragraph (d)(2) of that AD (AD 2001-18-04 refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-21A2412, dated January 20, 2000; or Revision 2, dated November 30, 2000; as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions): Actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD are not required for that forward heat exchanger shell only. Parts Installation
(j)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a heat exchanger shell having a part number identified in the “Existing Part Number” column of the table specified in paragraph 2.C. of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2007, on any airplane. Special Flight Permits
(k)Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be done, except as provided by paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD.
(1)If any forward or rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area is found deflecting or interfering with the rudder and/or elevator control cables ( *e.g.* , chafing, rubbing, or contacting) during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, special flight permits are not allowed.
(2)If any crack or crease is found on the forward or rear heat exchanger shell of the air distribution system of the crew rest area during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, the air distribution system in the crew rest area must be inoperative during flight. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(m)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-21A2439, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 30, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23850 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28620; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-090-AD; Amendment 39-15299; AD 2007-25-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the station
(STA)1241 bulkhead fittings just above the canted pressure deck; a one-time determination of the edge margin at seven fastener positions on each side of the airplane; and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from a report that an operator found a 1.65-inch crack on the STA 1241 bulkhead fitting on the left side of a Boeing Model 747-200F series airplane that had accumulated 17,332 total flight cycles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the STA 1241 bulkhead fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6437; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37130). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the station
(STA)1241 bulkhead fittings just above the canted pressure deck; a one-time determination of the edge margin at seven fastener positions on each side of the airplane; and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request to Revise “Relevant Service Information” Section Boeing asks that we revise the first sentence in the fourth paragraph of the “Relevant Service Information” section of the NPRM. That sentence now reads: “For airplanes modified in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2283 (AD 90-06-06). * * *” Because Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2283 describes four different procedures and the modification referred to in the NPRM is a splice strap replacement, Boeing requests that the sentence read: “For airplanes modified by replacing the splice strap in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-2283, Part III, Splice Strap Replacement and Boeing drawing 624U0006 * * *” We agree that the requested change clarifies the explanation in the “Relevant Service Information” section in the preamble of the NPRM. However, since that section of the preamble does not reappear in the final rule, no change to the final rule is necessary. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 455 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 133 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions take about 14 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $148,960, or $1,120 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-25-17 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15299. Docket No. FAA-2007-28620; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-090-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658, dated February 22, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that an operator found a 1.65-inch crack on the station
(STA)1241 bulkhead fitting on the left side of a Boeing Model 747-200F series airplane that had accumulated 17,332 total flight cycles. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the STA 1241 bulkhead fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspections and Corrective Action
(f)At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658, dated February 22, 2007: Do internal surface high-frequency eddy current and external ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the STA 1241 bulkhead fittings just above the canted pressure deck; determine the edge margin at seven fastener positions on each side of the airplane; and do all applicable related investigative/corrective actions; by doing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658, dated February 22, 2007, except as provided by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative/corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of the service bulletin.
(1)Where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, before further flight, do the action using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD.
(2)Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2658, dated February 22, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 30, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23871 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29226; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-256-AD; Amendment 39-15298; AD 2007-25-16] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, inspecting for cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, installing or replacing doublers as applicable, and doing applicable repairs. This AD results from reports of fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, which could lead to loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5233; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD)that would apply to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53495). That NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, inspecting for cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, installing or replacing doublers as applicable, and doing applicable repairs. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 76 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 46 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The actions vary depending upon the airplane configuration. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Low frequency eddy current inspection 1 None needed $80, per inspection cycle Up to $3,680, per inspection cycle. High frequency eddy current inspection 1 None needed $80, per inspection cycle Up to $3,680, 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 This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-25-16 McDonnell Douglas:** Amendment 39-15298. Docket No. FAA-2007-29226; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-256-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-81 (MD-81) and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb, which could lead to loss of overall structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for Configuration 1, 2, and 3 Airplanes
(f)For airplanes identified as Configuration 1, 2, or 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the alert service bulletin, do a low-frequency eddy current
(LFEC)or high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspection, as applicable, for cracking of the fuselage skin at the upper corners of the forward passenger doorjamb; and do all applicable corrective actions (repetitive inspections, installation of doublers, replacements, and repairs), except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Do the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin. Where the alert service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. Repair of Certain Conditions
(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Corrective Action for Configuration 4 Airplanes
(h)For airplanes identified as Configuration 4 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(j)You must use the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A298, dated August 1, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
(3)You may review copies of the service information incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 29, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23687 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29249; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-112-AD; Amendment 39-15294; AD 2007-25-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated 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: After a push back from the gate, an A320-200 aircraft was preparing to initiate taxi, when a NLG (nose landing gear) uncommanded retraction occurred, and then the aircraft abruptly hit the ground. * * * Untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, while on the ground, could cause injury to ground personnel and significant structural damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53699). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: After push back from the gate, an A320-200 aircraft was preparing to initiate taxi, when a NLG (nose landing gear) uncommanded retraction occurred, and then the aircraft abruptly hit the ground. Investigations revealed that the retract condition is caused by a combination of a faulty MLG (main landing gear) proximity switch, a power interruption to LGCIUs (Landing Gear Control and Interface Units) and an internal hydraulic leak through the LG (landing gear) selector valve 40GA. The internal hydraulic leak through the LG selector valve 40GA was due to a broken seal in one of the end cap chambers for the valve spool. As a corrective action, a duplicate inspection (DI or DI-BE) for these valves has been introduced in production, and the Component Maintenance Manual
(CMM)has been revised. Untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, while on the ground, could cause injury to ground personnel and significant structural damage to the aircraft. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates the inspections of the LG selector valve 40GA and the LG door selector valve 41GA, to identify a possible hydraulic leak. The corrective action includes replacing the LG selector valve 40GA and/or the LG door selector valve 41GA if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Editorial Change We have revised paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD by removing the phrase “if necessary” and adding the phrase “as applicable,” in order to clarify that the replacement must be done if leaking is found. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 653 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $365,680, or $560 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-25-12 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15294. Docket No. FAA-2007-29249; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-112-AD. Effective Date
(a)This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, certificated in any category, except those identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1)Manufacturer serial numbers
(MSNs)2389, 2392, 2393, 2396, 2398, 2403, 2405, 2407, 2409, 2410, 2411, 2413 through 2439, 2441, and MSNs above 2441, on which no replacement of the landing gear
(LG)selector valve 40GA or the LG door selector valve 41GA has been performed since aircraft delivery from Airbus.
(2)Aircraft on which LG selector valve 40GA and LG door selector valve 41GA have been stamped to indicate that a duplicate inspection has been done. If the duplicate inspection has been done, the amendment plates on the valves will be stamped with letters “DI” or “DI-BE.” Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 32: Landing Gear. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: “After push back from the gate, an A320-200 aircraft was preparing to initiate taxi, when an NLG (nose landing gear) uncommanded retraction occurred, and then the aircraft abruptly hit the ground. Investigations revealed that the retract condition is caused by a combination of a faulty MLG (main landing gear) proximity switch, a power interruption to LGCIUs (Landing Gear Control and Interface Units) and an internal hydraulic leak through the LG (landing gear) selector valve 40GA. The internal hydraulic leak through the LG selector valve 40GA was due to a broken seal in one of the end cap chambers for the valve spool. As a corrective action, a duplicate inspection (DI or DI-BE) for these valves has been introduced in production, and the Component Maintenance Manual
(CMM)has been revised. Untimely unlocking and/or retraction of the NLG, while on the ground, could cause injury to ground personnel and significant structural damage to the aircraft. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates the inspections of the LG selector valve 40GA and the LG door selector valve 41GA, to identify a possible hydraulic leak.” The corrective action includes replacing the LG selector valve 40GA and/or the LG door selector valve 41GA if necessary. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)For aircraft that have accumulated up to and including 20,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 20,800 total flight cycles, inspect for hydraulic leaking of the LG selector valve 40GA and the LG door selector valve 41GA and, as applicable, replace the LG selector valve 40GA and the LG door selector valve 41GA before further flight in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1290, Revision 01, dated November 10, 2006.
(2)For aircraft that have accumulated over 20,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, inspect for hydraulic leaking of the LG selector valve 40GA and the LG door selector valve 41GA and, as applicable, replace the LG selector valve 40GA and the LG door selector valve 41GA before further flight in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1290, Revision 01, dated November 10, 2006.
(3)For all airplanes: Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable, thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles, or 89 months, whichever occurs first, and, as applicable, ( *i.e.* , if any leakage is found) replace the LG selector valve 40GA and the LG door selector valve 41GA before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1290, Revision 01, dated November 10, 2006.
(4)For all airplanes: From the effective date of this AD, the installation of LG selector valve 40GA or LG door selector valve 41GA, that do not have the duplicate inspection “DI” or “DI-BE” recorded on their amendment plates, is possible provided that it is inspected within 800 flight cycles after installation, in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1290, Revision 01, dated November 10, 2006. Repeat the inspection thereafter as given in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
(5)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1290, dated May 2, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. 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.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0065R1, dated June 12, 2007, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1290, Revision 01, dated November 10, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1290, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 10, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23682 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0285; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-15-AD; Amendment 39-15296; AD 2007-25-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 helicopters. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The aviation authority of Italy, with which we have a bilateral agreement, states in the MCAI: Field reports have shown that the Agusta AB/AW139's Tailpipe Assembly is prone to cracks. To prevent any cracks from developing into failure of the exhaust tailpipe assembly * * * This AD retains the requirements of the existing AD, but expands the applicability to include the Agusta Model AW139 helicopters and includes modification procedures to strengthen certain cracked areas that are outside the cowling and are within certain allowable limits. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition of cracks in the tailpipe assembly. DATES: This AD becomes effective December 26, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-069, Revision A, dated November 8, 2006, as of December 26, 2007. We must receive comments on this AD by February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Cuevas, Aerospace Engineer, Safety Management Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone
(817)222-5355, fax
(817)222-5961. 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 AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Discussion On August 24, 2006, we issued AD 2006-17-51, Amendment 39-14747 (71 FR 51988, September 1, 2006). That AD required actions intended to address cracks in the exhaust tailpipes of Agusta Model AB139 helicopters. Since we issued AD 2006-17-51, the applicability has been expanded to include the Agusta Model AW139 helicopters. In addition, modification procedures have been introduced to strengthen certain cracked areas that are outside the cowling and are within certain allowable limits. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued an MCAI in the form of EASA AD No: 2006-0360-E, dated November 29, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition for these Italian-certificated products. The MCAI states: Field reports have shown that the Agusta AB/AW139's Tailpipe Assembly is prone to cracks. To prevent any cracks from developing into failure of the exhaust tailpipe assembly * * * You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-069, Revision A, dated November 8, 2006. The actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service information. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Italy, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and the service information. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs. Differences Between the 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in the “Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI” section in the AD. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the superseded AD was an Emergency AD, and because this AD continues the inspection requirements and adds the Model AW139 helicopters to the applicability as well as introduces repair procedures for certain cracks located outside the cowling that are within certain allowable limits established by Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-069, Rev. A, dated November 8, 2006. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0285; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-15-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 21 helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour to inspect a helicopter and 3 work-hours per helicopter to either repair or replace an exhaust tailpipe assembly. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. A replacement exhaust tailpipe assembly costs about $20,649 per helicopter. The repair does not require purchasing any parts other than consumable materials. In addition, we have assumed that 5 of the affected helicopters will require replacement of an exhaust tailpipe assembly. Based on these assumptions and figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $106,125, or $1,680 per helicopter for the inspection and $20,889 in additional costs for the 5 helicopters requiring replacement of the exhaust tailpipe assembly. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14747 (71 FR 51988, September 1, 2006) and adding the following new AD: **2007-25-14 Agusta S.p.A:** Amendment 39-15296. Docket No. FAA-2007-0285; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-15-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective on December 26, 2007. Other Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-17-51, Amendment 39-14747, Docket No. FAA-2006-25703, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-20-AD. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, all serial numbers, except 31002, 31003, 31004 and 31007, with tailpipe assemblies, part number (P/N) 3G7800L00131
(LH)or 3G7800L00231 (RH), certificated in any category. Reason
(d)The mandatory continued airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Field reports have shown that the Agusta AB/AW139's Tailpipe Assembly is prone to cracks. To prevent any cracks from developing into failure of the exhaust tailpipe assembly * * * Actions and Compliance Continuing Requirements
(e)Before further flight, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), access the rear areas of each tailpipe assembly by removing the rear cowlings.
(1)Visually inspect each tailpipe assembly *inside the cowling* for a crack. If you find a crack, before further flight, replace the cracked tailpipe assembly with an airworthy tailpipe assembly.
(2)Visually inspect the structure surrounding each tailpipe assembly for overheating. If you find areas of overheating in the structure surrounding each tailpipe assembly, inspect for overheating in the underlying structure including on the upper deck thermal protection. Repair any damaged areas before further flight.
(3)Visually inspect at the internal part of the tailpipe assembly exhaust *outside the cowling* as depicted by Area A, Figure 1, of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-069, Revision A, dated November 8, 2006 (ABT).
(i)Clean the end of each tailpipe assembly with a cloth. While applying slight pressure on it, inspect for a crack using a flashlight.
(ii)Inspect each tailpipe assembly toward the centerline of the helicopter for a crack using a flashlight.
(iii)Inspect each tailpipe assembly toward the outboard side of the helicopter for a crack using a mirror and a flashlight. New Requirements
(f)If you find a crack in the exhaust area *outside the cowling* , do the following:
(1)If any crack turns off abruptly (at an angle of greater than 45°) from the original direction, before further flight, replace that tailpipe assembly with an airworthy tailpipe assembly.
(2)If you find only one crack in a tailpipe assembly and the crack does not make an abrupt turn and is 50mm or less in length—
(i)Stop-drill the crack with a No. 30 drill bit, or
(ii)Repair that tailpipe assembly in accordance with the Compliance Instructions, paragraph 7) d), of the ABT.
(iii)If you choose to stop-drill the crack as indicated in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, thereafter, before the first flight of each day, inspect the stop-drill hole to determine whether another crack has started at the stop-drill hole. If you find during any inspection that another crack has started, before further flight, replace that tailpipe assembly with an airworthy tailpipe assembly.
(3)If you find more than one crack and no crack makes an abrupt turn as stated in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and the cracks are within the allowable limits stated in the Compliance Instructions, paragraph 7) d), of the ABT, repair the tailpipe assembly in accordance with the Compliance Instructions, paragraph 7) d) of the ABT.
(g)Repairing or replacing the affected tailpipe assembly does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection as required by paragraph
(e)of this AD. Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI
(h)None. Subject
(i)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 7810—Engine Collector/Tailpipe/Nozzle. Other Information
(j)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Safety and Management Group, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Ed Cuevas, Aerospace Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone
(817)222-5355, fax
(817)222-5961.
(2)Airworthy Product: Use only FAA-approved corrective actions. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the United States. 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
(k)Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive No. 2006-0360-E, dated November 29, 2006; Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-069, Rev. A, dated November 8, 2006; and Aircraft Maintenance Publication
(AMP)AB139 and AW139 contain related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(l)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-069, Rev. A, dated November 8, 2006, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(m)For service information identified in this AD, contact Via Giovanni Agusta, 520, 21017 Cascina Costa diSamarate (VA), Italy, telephone +39 0331-229111, fax +39 0331-229605/222595.
(n)You may review copies of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-069, Rev. A, dated November 8, 2006, at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on November 27, 2007. Mark R. Schilling, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23637 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29117; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-114-AD; Amendment 39-15291; AD 2007-25-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated 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: As a result of a Wide Spread Fatigue Damage
(WFD)calculation on A310 aircraft it was found that a modification of the upper fuselage circumferential joint at FR (frame) 55/58 is necessary to enable the aircraft to reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG). The unsafe condition is failure of the circumferential joint of the upper fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51386). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: As a result of a Wide Spread Fatigue Damage
(WFD)calculation on A310 aircraft it was found that a modification of the upper fuselage circumferential joint at FR (frame) 55/58 is necessary to enable the aircraft to reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG). As a consequence, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the reinforcement of the affected fuselage frame butt joint. The unsafe condition is failure of the circumferential joint of the upper fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 67 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 330 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $3,016 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 parts. 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 this AD to the U.S. operators to be $1,970,872, or $29,416 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-25-09 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15291. Docket No. FAA-2007-29117; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-114-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in any category; all certified models; all serial numbers; except airplanes that have received in-service application of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2125. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: As a result of a Wide Spread Fatigue Damage
(WFD)calculation on A310 aircraft it was found that a modification of the upper fuselage circumferential joint at FR (frame) 55/58 is necessary to enable the aircraft to reach the Extended Service Goal (ESG). As a consequence, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires the reinforcement of the affected fuselage frame butt joint. The unsafe condition is failure of the circumferential joint of the upper fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions: Reinforce the fuselage butt joint at FR 55/58 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2125, including Appendix 01, dated January 9, 2007, at the applicable compliance times listed in Table 1 (threshold) or Table 2 (grace period) of this AD, whichever occurs later. Table 1.—Compliance Thresholds Airbus model Whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD Accumulated time since first flight (in flight cycles) Accumulated time since first flight (in flight hours) A310-200 airplanes 41,500 83,500 A310-300 airplanes with an average flight time
(AFT)≤ to 4 hours 33,000 93,500 A310-300 airplanes with an AFT > 4 hours 20,500 102,000 Table 2.—Grace Periods Airbus model Whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD Flight cycles Flight hours A310-200 airplanes 1,500 3,000 A310-300 airplanes with an AFT ≤ 4 hours 1,200 3,400 A310-300 airplanes with an AFT > 4 hours 740 3,600 FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. 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.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0111, dated April 25, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2125, including Appendix 01, dated January 9, 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2125, including Appendix 01, dated January 9, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23457 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29031; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-130-AD; Amendment 39-15284; AD 2007-25-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of either the aft side or forward side of the aft pressure bulkhead for oil can conditions or bulges, a one-time inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead to identify any previously installed web repair, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from web oil can conditions found on the aft pressure bulkhead of several airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct oil can conditions, bulges, or previous repairs in the aft pressure bulkhead, which could lead to web cracks and consequently result in rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6430; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 24, 2007 (72 FR 48594). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of either the aft side or forward side of the aft pressure bulkhead for oil can conditions or bulges, a one-time inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead to identify any previously installed web repair, and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the two comments received. Boeing and Continental Airlines support the NPRM. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 1,755 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 600 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required inspection takes about 6 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $288,000, or $480 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-25-03 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15284. Docket No. FAA-2007-29031; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-130-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1253, dated May 18, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from web oil can conditions found on the aft pressure bulkhead of several airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct oil can conditions, bulges, or previous repairs in the aft pressure bulkhead, which could lead to web cracks and consequently result in rapid decompression of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Repetitive Inspections
(f)At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1253, dated May 18, 2007, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Do repetitive general visual inspections of either the aft side or forward side of the aft pressure bulkhead for oil can conditions or bulges and a one-time general visual inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead to identify any previously installed web repair, and do all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1253, dated May 18, 2007, except as provided by paragraphs
(h)and
(i)of this AD. Exceptions to Compliance Times
(g)Where Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1253, dated May 18, 2007, specify a compliance time of “at or before 15,000 total flight cycles or within 1,200 flight cycles” for the general visual inspections, this AD requires accomplishing the applicable inspection at the later of those compliance times. Where Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin specify counting the compliance time from the “release date of this service bulletin” or “after the date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires starting the compliance time from the effective date of this AD. Where Table 2 of paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin specifies to determine the FAA-approved, follow-on inspection procedures, thresholds, and repeat intervals and to incorporate them into the airplane maintenance program within 12 months after accomplishing the inspection given in Section 53-80-08-2R of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900 Structural Repair Manuals (SRMs), this AD requires that those corrective actions, if applicable, be done within 12 months after accomplishing the one-time general visual inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead for any previously installed web repair as required by paragraph
(f)of this AD. Exceptions to Corrective Actions
(h)If any crack or bulge is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1253, dated May 18, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, before further flight, repair according to a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or according to data meeting the certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. If a previously installed aft pressure bulkhead web repair is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, and the FAA-approved supplemental inspection program cannot be determined from either the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900 SRMs or the service bulletin, and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for further instructions, within 12 months after accomplishing the inspection contact the Manager, SACO, or an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization to develop a supplemental inspection program. No Reporting Requirement
(i)Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1253, dated May 18, 2007, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(k)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1253, dated May 18, 2007, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23458 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27257; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-131-AD; Amendment 39-15297; AD 2007-25-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes and Model A300-600 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. This AD requires inspecting to determine the part number of the sliding rods of the main landing gear
(MLG)retraction actuators. For MLG retraction actuators equipped with sliding rods having certain part numbers, the AD also requires inspecting for discrepancies, including but not limited to cracking, of the sliding rod; and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires returning affected sliding rods to the manufacturer. This AD results from a report of a failure of a sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator before the actuator reached the life limit established by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53489). That supplemental NPRM proposed to require inspecting to determine the part number of the sliding rods of the main landing gear
(MLG)retraction actuators. For MLG retraction actuators equipped with sliding rods having certain part numbers, the supplemental NPRM also proposed to require inspecting for discrepancies, including but not limited to cracking, of the sliding rod; and performing corrective actions if necessary. The supplemental NPRM also proposed to require returning affected sliding rods to the manufacturer. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the supplemental NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed in the supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, per inspection cycle. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection to determine part number 1 None $80 168 $13,440 Inspections for discrepancies 11 None 880 168 147,840 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-25-15 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15297. Docket No. FAA-2007-27257; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-131-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of a failure of a sliding rod of the main landing gear
(MLG)retraction actuator before the actuator reached the life limit established by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the MLG. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1)For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-0450, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 10, 2006.
(2)For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6097, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 10, 2006. Note 1: The Airbus service bulletins refer to Messier-Dowty Special Inspection Service Bulletin 470-32-806, dated October 27, 2005, as an additional source of service information for performing detailed and high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC)inspections to detect discrepancies of the sliding rod. Inspection To Determine Part Number (P/N) of Sliding Rod
(g)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a one-time inspection to determine the part number of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. If no sliding rod having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3 is installed, no further action is required by this paragraph. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuator can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated less than 27,000 total flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: After accumulating total 27,000 flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator, do the inspection within the next 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 27,000 or more total flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD. Inspection for Discrepancies of Sliding Rod and Corrective Actions
(h)For MLG retraction actuators equipped with sliding rods having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, perform detailed and HFEC inspections of the sliding rod of the MLG retraction actuators on the left-hand and right-hand MLGs, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. Then, before further flight, perform all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(1)For airplanes that have accumulated less than 27,000 total flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: After accumulating 27,000 total flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator, do the inspections within the next 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first.
(2)For airplanes that have accumulated 27,000 or more total flight cycles on the MLG retraction actuator as of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspections within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD. Note 2: 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.” Note 3: Operators should note that the MLG retraction actuator rod must be replaced with a new or serviceable actuator rod before the 32,000-flight-cycle life limit specified in the applicable airworthiness limitations document, regardless of the inspection findings. Return of MLG Retraction Actuator Sliding Rod
(i)For airplanes having any retraction actuator sliding rods specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: After the effective date of this AD, for the first replacement of the retraction actuator sliding rod, return the retraction actuator sliding rod to Messier-Dowty, SA Product Support Engineering, BP10—78142 Velizy Cedex, France, within 30 days after the retraction actuator sliding rod is removed from the airplane.
(1)Any retraction actuator sliding rod that is found to have cracking during the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(2)Any retraction actuator sliding rod, P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3, removed that has accumulated between 27,000 total flight cycles and 32,000 total flight cycles. Parts Installation for MLG Retraction Actuator Rod
(j)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an MLG retraction actuator that is equipped with a sliding rod having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3, and on which the retraction actuator rod has accumulated 27,000 total flight cycles or more, unless paragraph
(h)of this AD is accomplished.
(k)As of the effective date of this AD, any MLG retraction actuator that is equipped with a sliding rod having P/N C69029-2 or C69029-3, and on which the retraction actuator rod has accumulated less than 27,000 total flight cycles, may be installed, on any airplane, provided that the inspections specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD are accomplished at the time specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Actions Accomplished According to a Previous Issue of the Service Bulletins
(l)Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the following service bulletins are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD:
(1)For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-0450, excluding Appendix 01, dated December 1, 2005.
(2)For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6097, excluding Appendix 01, dated December 1, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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. Related Information
(n)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0075R2, dated January 4, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(o)You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-0450, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 10, 2006; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-32-6097, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 10, 2006; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.* Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 29, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23673 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28448; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-24-AD; Amendment 39-15290; AD 2007-25-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model SA-365 N1, AS-365 N2, AS-365 N3, SA-366G1, EC 155B, and EC155B1 Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)for the specified Eurocopter France
(ECF)model helicopters. That AD currently requires a onetime inspection for end play in the pitch control rod assembly double bearing (bearing) using the tail rotor (T/R) hub control plate, and before further flight, replacing the bearing if end play is present. This amendment requires checking the T/R gearbox
(TGB)oil level before the first flight of the day and maintaining the oil at the maximum level for certain helicopters. Also, this action requires, during each required inspection or at certain specified intervals, ensuring the oil is at the maximum level for certain other model helicopters. This action also requires inspecting the magnetic plug for chips at specified intervals. Depending on the quantity of chips found, this action requires either replacing the TGB before further flight or further inspecting for axial play in the T/R hub pitch change control spider (spider). If axial play is found in the spider, before further flight, this AD requires replacing the bearing. This amendment is prompted by the finding that metal chips were not detected on the magnetic plug due to insufficient oil flow because the oil in the TGB was being maintained at the minimum level. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect metal chips on the magnetic plug, to prevent damage to the bearing resulting in end play, loss of T/R pitch control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Effective January 14, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone
(972)641-3460, fax
(972)641-3527. *Examining the Docket:* You may examine the docket that contains this AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov,* or at the Docket Operations office, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone
(817)222-5123, fax
(817)222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 2006-09-10, Amendment 39-14581 (71 FR 25930), for the specified ECF model helicopters was published in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32565). The action proposed to require checking the T/R gearbox
(TGB)oil level before the first flight of the day and maintaining the oil at the maximum level for certain helicopters. Also, the action proposed during each required inspection or at certain specified intervals, ensuring the oil is at the maximum level for certain other model helicopters. Also, proposed was inspecting the magnetic plug for chips at specified intervals. Depending on the quantity of chips found, either replacing the TGB before further flight or further inspecting for axial play in the T/R hub pitch change control spider (spider) was proposed. If axial play is found in the spider, before further flight, the action proposed replacing the bearing. The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on the specified ECF helicopters. EASA advises of a loss of tail rotor pitch control on a helicopter during a landing phase due to significant damage to the bearing of the control rod in the tail gear box. EASA advises that the loss of tail rotor pitch control can lead to the loss of yaw control of the helicopter. Since issuing AD 2006-09-10, ECF has issued Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB)05.00.54, dated August 25, 2006, for Model SA-365 N1, AS-365 N2, AS 365 N3, to replace ASB 05.00.52, dated February 15, 2006. ECF has also issued ASB 05.37 for Model SA 366G1, dated August 25, 2006, to replace ASB 05.36, dated February 15, 2006. Also, ECF has issued ASB 05A015 for Model EC155B and EC155B1, dated August 25, 2006, to replace ASB 05A013, dated February 15, 2005. ASBs 05.00.52, 05.36, and 05A013 introduced a periodic check for absence of end play in the bearing. These ASBs were revised following the loss of yaw control on an AS365 MB helicopter due to progressive deterioration of the bearing. The metal chips resulting from this deterioration remained trapped in the area around the bearing and were not detected by the magnetic plug of the TGB. Further investigation and analyses revealed that the nondetection of the chips resulting from this deterioration was due to insufficient oil flow. This occurs when the oil level in the TGB is continuously maintained at the “min” level. Therefore, the ASBs specify keeping the TGB oil level at maximum level to ensure that any chips resulting from possible deterioration of the bearing are detected by the magnetic plug. Also, the ASBs specify checking for absence of play in the bearing should chips be detected at the magnetic plug of the TGB. EASA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued Emergency AD
(EAD)No. 2006-0258 R1-E on August 29, 2006. This EAD replaced EAD No. 2006-0051-E, dated February 20, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France. These helicopter models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Under this agreement, EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined EASA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the rule as proposed except we are correcting various typographical errors. The **Federal Register** citation for the superseded AD was referred to in two places as 85 FR 25930, and it should have been referred to as 71 FR 25930. Additionally, the paragraph designations of the incorporated ASB paragraphs contained 3 small errors. These have been corrected in this final rule. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 133 helicopters of U.S. registry, and the actions will require about: • 1/2 hour to check the oil level, fill the oil to maximum level, and inspect the magnetic plug for metal chips; • 1/2 hour to inspect for end play in the bearing; • 8 hours to remove and replace the bearing (if necessary) at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour; and • $2,026 for required parts per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $365,218, assuming the bearing is replaced on the entire fleet after 1 oil level check, 1 magnetic plug inspection, and 1 end play inspection. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation. 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-14581 (71 FR 25930, May 3, 2006), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), Amendment 39-15290, to read as follows: **2007-25-08 Eurocopter France:** Amendment 39-15290. Docket No. FAA-2007-28448; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-24-AD. Supersedes AD 2006-09-10, Amendment 39-14581, Docket No. FAA-2006-24588, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-07-AD. Applicability Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, SA-366G1, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters, with a tail rotor (T/R) pitch control rod assembly double bearing (bearing) installed, certificated in any category. Compliance Required as indicated. To detect metal chips on the magnetic plug to prevent damage to the bearing resulting in end play, loss of T/R pitch control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, do the following:
(a)Before the first flight of each day for Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters, check the T/R gearbox
(TGB)oil level. An owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform the visual check of the oil level but must enter compliance into the aircraft maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v).
(b)If the oil level is not at maximum during the check in paragraph
(a)of this AD, before further flight, a qualified mechanic must fill it to the maximum level.
(c)During each required inspection not to exceed 15 hours time-in-service
(TIS)or 7 days, whichever occurs first, if the oil level is not at the maximum level, fill it to the maximum level for Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters.
(d)Inspect the magnetic plug of the TGB for any chips as follows:
(1)At intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS for helicopters with a magnetic plug without a chip electrical indication in the cockpit, or
(2)At intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS and after any illumination of the TGB “CHIP” warning light for helicopters with a chip electrical indication in the cockpit.
(e)If you find any chips during the inspection in paragraph
(d)of this AD, before further flight, follow the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.2.b), of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.54 for Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3; No. 05A015 for Model EC 155B and EC155B1; or No. 05.37 for Model SA-366G1, all dated August 25, 2006 (ASBs), as appropriate for your model helicopter.
(1)If the quantity of chips on the magnetic plug, as referenced in the Operational Procedures, paragraph 2.B.2.b)1) of the ASBs is at or above the removal criteria, before further flight, replace the TGB with an airworthy TGB.
(2)If the quantity of chips on the magnetic plug is below the removal criteria, as referenced in the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.2.b)2) of the ASBs.
(i)Inspect for axial play in the T/R hub pitch control change spider (spider) by following the additional steps in the Operational Procedure, paragraph 2.B.2.b)2) of the ASBs.
(ii)If there is axial play in the spider, before further flight, replace the bearing with an airworthy bearing.
(f)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, ATTN: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone
(817)222-5123, fax
(817)222-5961.
(g)Special flight permits will not be issued.
(h)Do the inspections by following the specified portions of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.54 for Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3; No. 05A015 for Model EC 155B and EC155B1; or No. 05.37 for Model SA-366G1 helicopters, all dated August 25, 2006, as applicable. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone
(972)641-3460, fax
(972)641-3527. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* .
(i)This amendment becomes effective on January 14, 2008. Note: The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency Revised Emergency AD No. 2006-0258 R1-E on August 29, 2006, which replaced AD No. 2006-0051-E, dated February 20, 2006. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 27, 2007. Mark R. Schilling, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23605 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29256; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-137-AD; Amendment 39-15293; AD 2007-25-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated 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: Two events have been reported of Fokker 100 (F.28 Mk.0100) aircraft, where the Nose Landing Gear
(NLG)failed to extend in the normal mode and problems were experienced to open the NLG doors, almost preventing extension of the NLG in the emergency (alternate) mode. Subsequent investigation and tests have shown that the friction of the bearing in the roller of the NLG Door Uplock Bracket Assembly is high, causing increased resistance in the mechanical system that unlocks the NLG doors. This condition, if not corrected, may result in a NLG up landing, which is considered a hazardous event. * * * We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53709). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Two events have been reported of Fokker 100 (F.28 Mk.0100) aircraft, where the Nose Landing Gear
(NLG)failed to extend in the normal mode and problems were experienced to open the NLG doors, almost preventing extension of the NLG in the emergency (alternate) mode. Subsequent investigation and tests have shown that the friction of the bearing in the roller of the NLG Door Uplock Bracket Assembly is high, causing increased resistance in the mechanical system that unlocks the NLG doors. This condition, if not corrected, may result in a NLG up landing, which is considered a hazardous event. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of the same type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires the introduction of an improved roller in the NLG Door Uplock Bracket Assembly. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $135 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 parts. 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 this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,955, or $535 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-25-11 Fokker Services B.V.:** Amendment 39-15293. Docket No. FAA-2007-29256; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-137-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 32: Landing gear. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Two events have been reported of Fokker 100 (F.28 Mk.0100) aircraft, where the Nose Landing Gear
(NLG)failed to extend in the normal mode and problems were experienced to open the NLG doors, almost preventing extension of the NLG in the emergency (alternate) mode. Subsequent investigation and tests have shown that the friction of the bearing in the roller of the NLG Door Uplock Bracket Assembly is high, causing increased resistance in the mechanical system that unlocks the NLG doors. This condition, if not corrected, may result in a NLG up landing, which is considered a hazardous event. Since a potentially unsafe condition has been identified that may exist or develop on aircraft of the same type design, this Airworthiness Directive requires the introduction of an improved roller in the NLG Door Uplock Bracket Assembly. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 4,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the NLG door uplock bracket assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-143, dated February 15, 2006.
(2)As of 18 months after the effective date of this AD, no spare NLG door uplock bracket assembly may be installed as a replacement part unless it has been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Component Service Bulletin D76501-32-17, dated February 15, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No difference. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 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. 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.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI Dutch Airworthiness Directive NL-2006-004, dated February 28, 2006; Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-143, dated February 15, 2006; and Fokker Component Service Bulletin D76501-32-17, dated February 15, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-143, dated February 15, 2006; and Fokker Component Service Bulletin D76501-32-17, dated February 15, 2006; as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23636 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29175; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-134-AD; Amendment 39-15292; AD 2007-25-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 900, Falcon 900EX, Falcon 2000, and Falcon 2000EX Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated 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: A rotating rod in the trailing edge flap control linkage broke in flight. Investigations revealed that the rotating rod had been installed in the wrong side during a maintenance operation. This incorrect installation caused a contact between the rotating rod and its retaining bracket leading, after some time in operation, to the rod breakage and flap asymmetry situation. The consequence on the airplane of the flap asymmetry combined with a latent failure of the asymmetry detection system is classified as a catastrophic failure condition. The unsafe condition is failure of the rotating rod in the control linkage of the trailing edge flap and consequent flap asymmetry during the approach to landing, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. 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: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on September 13, 2007 (72 FR 52311). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A rotating rod in the trailing edge flap control linkage broke in flight. Investigations revealed that the rotating rod had been installed in the wrong side during a maintenance operation. This incorrect installation caused a contact between the rotating rod and its retaining bracket leading, after some time in operation, to the rod breakage and flap asymmetry situation. The consequence on the airplane of the flap asymmetry combined with a latent failure of the asymmetry detection system is classified as a catastrophic failure condition. The unsafe condition is failure of the rotating rod in the control linkage of the trailing edge flap and consequent flap asymmetry during the approach to landing, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The corrective actions include the following: Verifying the correct assembly of the flap rotating rods and associated brackets and installing the rod and bracket with correct orientation/positioning if necessary; and inspecting the rod for damage and replacing the rod if any damage is found. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 739 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $118,240, or $160 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-25-10 Dassault Aviation:** Amendment 39-15292. Docket No. FAA-2007-29175; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-134-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD; certificated in any category.
(1)Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes on which Dassault Modification M2996 has not been implemented.
(2)Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 900 airplanes on which Dassault Modification M5007 has not been implemented.
(3)Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplanes on which Dassault Modification M5007 has not been implemented (including serial number 601 and subsequent, also known as “DX” airplanes).
(4)Dassault Model Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX airplanes on which Dassault Modification M2465 has not been implemented. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: A rotating rod in the trailing edge flap control linkage broke in flight. Investigations revealed that the rotating rod had been installed in the wrong side during a maintenance operation. This incorrect installation caused a contact between the rotating rod and its retaining bracket leading, after some time in operation, to the rod breakage and flap asymmetry situation. The consequence on the airplane of the flap asymmetry combined with a latent failure of the asymmetry detection system is classified as a catastrophic failure condition. The unsafe condition is failure of the rotating rod in the control linkage of the trailing edge flap and consequent flap asymmetry during the approach to landing, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The corrective actions include the following: Verifying the correct assembly of the flap rotating rods and associated brackets and installing the rod and bracket with correct orientation/positioning if necessary; and inspecting the rod for damage and replacing the rod if any damage is found. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, within 330 flight hours or 7 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the following actions.
(1)Verify the correct assembly of the flap rotating rods and associated retaining brackets installed in the LH (left-hand)/RH (right-hand) wing root compartment and in the LH and RH main landing gear compartment and inspect the rod for damage, in accordance with the applicable Dassault service bulletin given in Table 1 of this AD.
(2)If a rod is found damaged, replace this rod prior to next flight in accordance with the applicable Dassault service bulletin given in Table 1 of this AD. If the rod orientation or bracket positioning is not correct, correct the orientation or positioning, as applicable, prior to next flight in accordance with the applicable Dassault service bulletin given in Table 1 of this AD.
(3)Label the rods and associated retaining brackets in accordance with the applicable Dassault service bulletin given in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Dassault Service Bulletins Airplane model Service Bulletin Date Mystere-Falcon 50 F50-468 March 29, 2006. Mystere-Falcon 900 F900-367 March 29, 2006. Falcon 900EX F900EX-269 March 29, 2006. Falcon 2000 F2000-326 March 29, 2006. Falcon 2000EX F2000EX-83 March 29, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 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. 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.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006-0115, dated May 10, 2006; and the Dassault service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use the service information specified in Table 2 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Dassault Service Bulletin Date F50-468 March 29, 2006. F900-367 March 29, 2006. F900EX-269 March 29, 2006. F2000-326 March 29, 2006. F2000EX-83 March 29, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23638 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27982; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-009-AD; Amendment 39-15288; AD 2007-25-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes, Model A300-600 Series Airplanes, and Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated 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: * * * accidents which occurred to in-service aircraft caused by the violent opening of a passenger door, related to excessive residual pressurization in the cabin on ground. This unsafe condition could result in injury to crew members opening the passenger door. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20289). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The modification rendered mandatory by this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)falls within the scope of a set of corrective measures undertaken by AIRBUS subsequent to accidents which occurred to in-service aircraft caused by the violent opening of a passenger door, related to excessive residual pressurization in the cabin on ground. In order to prevent the flight crews operating in manual mode when discrete spoilers signals are true and ensures OFV (outflow valve) or depress valve are driven open after landing, this modification consists of introducing an automatic opening logic either for the forward and aft OFV or for the single depress valve, when the aircraft is on ground, immediately after landing. The MCAI requires the modification described previously. This unsafe condition could result in injury to crew members opening the passenger door. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. Request To Include Revised Service Information Airbus asks that Airbus Service Bulletin A300-21-6049, Revision 02, dated April 16, 2007, be incorporated into the NPRM. (We referred to Revision 01, dated September 15, 2006, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing certain actions specified in the NPRM.) We agree with Airbus and have changed paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to refer to Revision 02 of Service Bulletin A300-21-6049 for accomplishing certain actions, as no additional work is required by this revision. We have also changed paragraph (f)(2) of this AD to give credit to operators who have accomplished the actions in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-21-6049, Revision 01, dated September 15, 2006. Request To Withdraw the NPRM The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member American Airlines, asks that the NPRM be withdrawn. American Airlines states that the NPRM is unnecessary in light of the associated mitigating actions and crew training. The commenters also cite actions in previous service bulletins and rulemaking that already address the requirements in the NPRM. We acknowledge that previous service bulletins and rulemaking have been issued to address certain aspects of the subject unsafe condition. However, we do not agree with the requests to withdraw the NPRM. The modification required by this AD alleviates some of the demands on the crews' time and attention during an emergency situation. It was determined that this modification addresses the unsafe condition because previous actions implemented changes that still required the attention and action of the crew. During an emergency situation and if the cabin pressure control system is in manual mode, the crew could be distracted enough that the necessary steps to prevent opening of a door with the fuselage still under some level of pressurization may be inadvertently missed. This would be avoided with the “OFV Automatic Opening Logic” installed. The purpose of the OFV opening logic is to offset a crew missing the required action (OFV full opening before landing is required by the procedure). Following an evaluation of the OFV opening logic, we have determined that the modification must be mandated. This modification, in combination with previous accomplishment of related modifications, will ensure that the unresolved safety issue is addressed. We have made no change to the AD in this regard. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 191 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take up to 34 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost up to $5,470 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 AD on U.S. operators to be up to $1,564,290, or $8,190 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **2007-25-06 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15288. Docket No. FAA-2007-27982; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-009-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplanes, certificated in any category:
(1)Model A300 series airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 0202, 0205, 0225, 0299, and 0302, in forward facing crew cockpit configuration, except airplanes which have received in service application of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-21-0132.
(2)Model A310 series airplanes, all certified models, all serial numbers, except airplanes which have received in service application of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-21-2062.
(3)Model A300-600 series airplanes, all certified models, all serial numbers, on which Airbus Modification 03881 is embodied, except airplanes which have received either incorporation of Airbus Modification 12942 during production, or application of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-21-6049 in service. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 21: Air conditioning. Reason
(e)The mandatory continued airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: The modification rendered mandatory by this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)falls within the scope of a set of corrective measures undertaken by AIRBUS subsequent to accidents which occurred to in-service aircraft caused by the violent opening of a passenger door, related to excessive residual pressurization in the cabin on ground. In order to prevent the flight crews operating in manual mode when discrete spoilers signals are true and ensures OFV (outflow valve) or depress valve are driven open after landing, this modification consists of introducing an automatic opening logic either for the forward and aft OFV or for the single depress valve, when the aircraft is on ground, immediately after landing. This unsafe condition could result in injury to crew members opening the passenger door. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Install an automatic opening logic either for the forward and aft OFV (outflow valve) or for the single depress valve, as applicable, by introducing the use of discrete spoiler signals, driving one (Model A300 airplanes) or two (Model A310 airplanes and Model A300-600 series airplanes) time delay relays, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-21-0132, dated July 28, 2006; A310-21-2062, dated July 20, 2006; or A300-21-6049, Revision 02, dated April 16, 2007; as applicable.
(2)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-21-6049, dated August 31, 2005; or Revision 01, dated September 15, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. 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.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007-0005, dated January 8, 2007; and Airbus Service Bulletins A300-21-0132, dated July 28, 2006; A300-21-6049, Revision 02, dated April 16, 2007; and A310-21-2062, dated July 20, 2006; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use the applicable Airbus service information specified in Table 1 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Table 1.—Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date A300-21-0132 Original July 28, 2006. A300-21-6049 02 April 16, 2007. A310-21-2062 Original July 20, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23462 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28996; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-217-AD; Amendment 39-15283; AD 2007-25-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. This AD results from issuance of new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 45952). That NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Support for the NPRM Airbus supports issuance of this AD without further delay. Request To Revise Address for Reporting Requirement Airbus requests that we revise the address for the reporting requirement specified in the NPRM. We agree and have revised paragraph
(i)of this AD to refer to the address provided in Airbus's comment. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. Costs of Compliance This AD affects about 69 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $11,040, or $160 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2007-25-02 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15283. Docket No. FAA-2007-28996; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-217-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective January 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC)25.1529-1. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from issuance of new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revision of Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(f)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
(1)Revise the ALS of the ICA to incorporate the structural inspections and inspection intervals defined in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Items
(ALI)Document, AI/SE-M2/95A.0263/06, Issue 6, dated April 2006 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)on May 31, 2006) (hereafter referred to as “Issue 6 of the ALI”). Accomplish the actions specified in Issue 6 of the ALI at the times specified in that ALI, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Thereafter, except as provided by paragraphs (f)(2) and
(j)of this AD, no alternative structural inspection intervals may be approved. The actions specified in Issue 6 of the ALI must be accomplished in accordance with Issue 6 of the ALI.
(2)Revise the ALS of the ICA to incorporate the new and revised structural inspections and inspection intervals defined in Airbus Temporary Revision
(TR)6.1, dated November 2006 (approved by the EASA on December 12, 2006), to Issue 6 of the ALI. Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph
(j)of this AD, no alternative structural inspection intervals may be approved. Exception to Issue 6 of the ALI
(g)The tolerance (grace period) for compliance with Issue 6 of the ALI is within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD provided that none of the following is exceeded:
(1)Thresholds or intervals in the operator's current approved maintenance schedule that are taken from a previous ALI issue, if existing, and are higher than or equal to those given in Issue 6 of the ALI.
(2)18 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3)50 percent of the intervals given in Issue 6 of the ALI.
(4)Any application tolerance specified in Section D of Issue 6 of the ALI. Corrective Actions
(h)Damaged, cracked, or corroded structure detected during any inspection done in accordance with Issue 6 of the ALI must be repaired, before further flight, in accordance with Issue 6 of the ALI; or in accordance with other data meeting the certification basis of the airplane that has been approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Where Issue 6 of the ALI specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the damaged, cracked, or corroded structure using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the EASA (or its delegated agent). Reporting Requirement
(i)If any damage that exceeds the allowable limits specified in Issue 6 of the ALI is detected during any inspection required by this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, submit a report of the finding to Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, Attn: Department Manager Maintenance Engineering, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; e-mail: *sched.maint@airbus.com.* The report must include the ALI task reference, airplane serial number, the number of flight cycles and flight hours on the airplane, identification of the affected structure, location and description of the finding including its size and orientation, and the circumstance of detection and inspection method used. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(1)If the inspection was done after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2)If the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures 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. Related Information
(k)EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0260, dated August 25, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(l)You must use Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Items Document, AI/SE-M2/95A.0263/06, Issue 6, dated April 2006; and Airbus Temporary Revision 6.1, including pages 1 and 2 of Section D and page 1 of Section E, dated November 2006, to Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Items Document, AI/SE-M2/95A.0263/06, Issue 6, dated April 2006; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 23, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23544 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28690; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-21-AD; Amendment 39-15289; AD 2007-25-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 206A and 206B Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
(BHTC)Model 206A and 206B helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 0004 through 3906, with two-piece vertical stabilizer
(fin)supports (fin supports) installed, that requires inserting a revision into the applicable maintenance manual, verifying the torque on the fin support attachment hardware, inspecting the fin support bracket and fins for paint or gaps, and inspecting the fin support bracket for cracking, and if a crack is found, replacing the two-piece vertical fin support with a one-piece casting support. This amendment is prompted by an accident in which the fin supports failed. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect improper torque of the fin supports' attachment hardware, gaps between the fin support bracket and the doubler, painted mating surfaces of the fin supports, vertical fin, and vertical fin inserts (fin inserts), and cracking in the fin supports, to prevent the vertical fin from rotating into the tail rotor, separation of the tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Effective January 14, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD from Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone
(450)437-2862 or
(800)363-8023, fax
(450)433-0272. *Examining the Docket:* You may examine the docket that contains this AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or at the Docket Operations office, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone
(817)222-5122, fax
(817)222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD for the specified model helicopters was published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2007 (72 FR 38527). That action proposed to require inserting a revision into the Inspection and Component Overhaul Schedule of the applicable maintenance manual, implementing a recurring inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 hour time-in-service
(TIS)or at each annual inspection, whichever occurs first, of the torque on the fin support attachment hardware, and inspecting the fin support for damage. Inspecting for paint on the mating surfaces of the fin support bracket and vertical fin, and inspecting the fin attaching hardware for proper torque and the amount of gap between the fin support bracket and the fin doubler, and inspecting the support bracket for cracking using a 10x or higher power magnifying glass was also proposed. Finally, if a crack is found, replacing the two-piece vertical fin support with a one-piece casting support, P/N 206-033-426-003, was proposed. Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on BHTC Model 206A and 206B helicopters, S/N 004 through 3906, with fin supports, P/N 206-031-417-003 or -007, or 206-031-418-001 or -005, installed. Transport Canada advises that a one-time inspection of the vertical fin mating surfaces is required to ensure an appropriate surface finish is present. In addition, they advise that a recurring torque check of the vertical fin attaching hardware is required to maintain the structural integrity of the joint. They also advise that the initial inspection be performed at the next scheduled 100 hour TIS or annual inspection, but within three
(3)months in accordance with BHTC Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-107, dated April 26, 2006, or later revisions approved by Transport Canada. BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-107, dated April 26, 2006, and subsequently issued Revision A of this ASB, dated June 15, 2006, which specifies a series of inspections of the two-piece fin supports, and also introduces a revision to Chapters 5 and 53 of the BHT-206A/B Series Maintenance Manual. The revision to Chapter 5 introduces a recurring vertical fin attaching hardware torque check, and inspecting the fin supports for damage, to be accomplished at the next scheduled 100 hour TIS or annual inspection. The revision to Chapter 53 updates the removal, installation, and inspection of the vertical fin. Transport Canada classified this alert service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2006-12, dated June 5, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Canada. These helicopter models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, Transport Canada has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of Transport Canada, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States. Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed. The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 1,466 helicopters of U.S. registry, and the required actions will take approximately 4 work hours per helicopter to accomplish at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. If needed, replacing a fin support will take approximately 30 work hours. Required parts will cost approximately $3,260 for each fin support. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $3,300,820 for the fleet during the first year, assuming 7 inspections per helicopter are conducted, and assuming that replacing the fin support is required on 3 helicopters. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation. 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **2007-25-07 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited:** Amendment 39-15289. Docket No. FAA-2007-28690; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-21-AD. *Applicability:* Model 206A and 206B helicopters, serial numbers 0004 through 3906, with two-piece vertical stabilizer
(fin)supports (fin supports), part number (P/N) 206-031-417-003 or -007, or P/N 206-031-418-001 or -005, installed, certificated in any category. *Compliance:* Required at the next scheduled 100 hour time-in-service
(TIS)inspection or annual inspection, but no later than 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless accomplished previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or at each annual inspection, whichever occurs first. To detect improper torque of the fin supports' attachment hardware, gaps between the fin support bracket and the doubler, painted mating surfaces of the fin support bracket, vertical fin, and vertical fin inserts (fin inserts), and cracks in the fin supports, to prevent the vertical fin from rotating into the tail rotor, separation of the tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a)Insert Revision 4 of BHT-206A/B-SERIES-MM into the appropriate section of the maintenance manual.
(b)Determine the type and part number of the installed vertical fin by referring to the listing in step 2., Table 1, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-107, Revision A, dated June 15, 2006 (ASB).
(c)For Type 1 and Type 3 vertical fins, inspect the vertical fin and fin support bracket for paint, and the vertical fin attaching hardware for proper torque, in accordance with steps 5. and 6. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB.
(d)For Type 2 vertical fins, inspect the vertical fin and fin support bracket for paint, the vertical fin attaching hardware for proper torque, and the amount of gap between the vertical fin support bracket and the vertical fin doubler in accordance with steps 5., 6., and 7. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB.
(e)If the inspections required by paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this AD indicate that the torque and gap are within limits, and there is no paint present, visually inspect the vertical fin support bracket in the area of the vertical fin attaching hardware for a crack using a 10x or higher power magnifying glass.
(1)If no crack is found, re-torque the vertical fin attaching hardware to between 75 and 95 in. lbs. (8.47 to 10.75 Nm).
(2)If a crack is found, replace the two-piece vertical fin support bracket with a one-piece vertical fin casting support, P/N 206-033-426-003.
(f)Based on your finding in paragraphs
(c)and
(d)of this AD, if either the torque or gap is out of limits, or paint is present:
(1)Remove the vertical fin.
(2)Remove all the primer and paint coatings in the areas indicated in Figure I of the ASB.
(3)Florescent penetrant inspect
(FPI)the vertical fin support.
(4)If a crack is found, replace the two-piece vertical fin support with a one-piece vertical fin casting support, P/N 206-033-426-003.
(5)If no crack is found, apply two coats of Polyamide Epoxy Primer on bare metal surfaces.
(g)For Type 2 vertical fins only:
(1)If incorrect washers (spacers) or no washers are installed, visually inspect the 4 vertical fin potted inserts as depicted in the vertical fin detail in Figure I of the ASB for any damage using a 10x or higher power magnifying glass.
(2)If any of the 4 vertical fin potted inserts is damaged with no other damage to the surrounding areas, remove and replace the damaged potted insert with an airworthy potted insert.
(3)After assuring that all 4 installed vertical fin potted inserts are undamaged, install the correct washers in accordance with step 9.d. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the ASB.
(h)This AD revises the helicopter maintenance manual by adding an inspection of the torque on the vertical fin attaching hardware, and inspections of the vertical fin and vertical fin support, to the 100-hour TIS and annual scheduled inspections.
(i)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, ATTN: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone
(817)222-5122, fax
(817)222-5961, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(j)The determination of the type and part number of the vertical fin, the inspections, and installing the correct washers, if necessary, shall be done in accordance with the specified portions of Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No. 206-06-107, Revision A, dated June 15, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone
(450)437-2862 or
(800)363-8023, fax
(450)433-0272. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* .
(k)This amendment becomes effective on January 14, 2008. Note: The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada (Canada) AD No. CF-2006-12, dated June 5, 2006. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 27, 2007. Mark R. Schilling, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23601 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 401 and 402 [Docket No. SSA-2007-0067] RIN 0960-AG14 Privacy and Disclosure of Official Records and Information AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Final rules with request for comment. SUMMARY: We are revising our rules to allow us to better preserve the anonymity of, and to better protect the physical well-being of, our employees who reasonably believe that they are at risk of injury or other harm if certain employment information about them is disclosed. These changes in the rules are intended to ensure uniform application of the policy for at-risk employees. We are again requesting comments on these final rules because we revised the language of the proposed rules to clarify our intent. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 9, 2008. *Comment Date:* To be sure your comments are considered, we must receive them by February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Regardless of which method you choose, to ensure that we can associate your comments with the correct regulation for consideration, you must state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2007-0067: • Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* (This is the preferred method for submitting your comments.) In the Search Documents section, select “Social Security Administration” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “submit”. In the Docket ID Column, locate SSA-2007-0067 and then click “Add Comments” in the “Comments Add/Due By” column. • Telefax to
(410)966-2830. • Letter to the Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. Box 17703, Baltimore, MD 21235-7703. • Deliver your comments to the Office of Regulations, Social Security Administration, 922 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may also inspect them on regular business days by making arrangements with the contact person named in this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edie McCracken, Social Insurance Specialist, Office of Public Disclosure, 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
(410)965-6117. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet Web site, Social Security Online, at *http://www.socialsecurity.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Version The electronic file of this document is available on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* Background We approved a recommendation from a national committee on security to implement a nationwide program to enhance the safety and security of our employees who are victims, or potential victims, of domestic violence. It was intended to safeguard the anonymity of at-risk employees when requests for their work location and/or phone number were received from individuals posing a threat to their personal safety, by delaying the disclosure of the information when certain conditions were met. This process would have entailed a change in our policy that now permits such information requests to be honored. While no action was ever taken on the recommendation, we are amending our rules to reflect a similar approach that will strengthen our privacy and disclosure rules to better safeguard at-risk employees. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking We proposed a modified version of the recommendation to implement a nationwide program to enhance the safety and security of our employees who are at risk or victims, or potential victims, of domestic violence and called it the Identity Protection Program (IPP). We published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)in the **Federal Register** on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32494). The NPRM proposed to: • Amend 20 CFR part 401, Appendix A (b)(3)(c)(4) by removing the sentence, “Location of duty station, including room number and telephone number,” and • Revise 20 CFR 402.45 by adding a new paragraph (e). New paragraph § 402.45(e) will describe the rules governing the release of personally identifiable information (employees' telephone numbers and duty stations, including room numbers, bay designations, or other identifying information regarding buildings or places of employment). We have made some revisions to the rules published in the NPRM due to the comments we received. We describe these revisions and our reasons for making them below. Comments on the NPRM When we published the NPRM, we provided the public with a 60-day comment period. Four individual members of the public and one advocacy organization submitted comments. Because some of the comments submitted were detailed, we have summarized the views presented in the comments and are responding to the issues raised in the comments that were within the scope of the proposed rules. *Comment:* Two members of the public expressed support and agreed with the proposal to strengthen our privacy and disclosure rules to better safeguard at-risk employees. One commenter urged us to promptly move forward with the proposal. *Response:* We appreciate the commenters' support of our proposal. *Comment:* Two members of the public and the advocacy organization disagreed with the proposal to strengthen our privacy and disclosure rules to better safeguard at-risk employees. They were concerned that the public would not have access to our employees when conducting claims-related business with us. These three commenters asserted that the proposed rules would not improve our service delivery because the public would not be able to directly contact the employee who handled a specific claim related issue or action. *Response:* These final rules are not intended to impede the prompt and courteous service that the public is entitled to receive. We do not believe that these changes will negatively affect the service that we provide to the public. Telephone calls from the public are received in each local field office through one general telephone number. For the purpose of conducting ongoing SSA business, however, it may be necessary for employees to provide a direct telephone number by which they can be reached when assisting members of the public. Under these rules, employees will still continue to receive telephone calls directly from those members of the public whom they are assisting. Our rules would provide an additional level of protection for employees who have reason to believe that disclosure of their work location and telephone number could add to their risk of injury or other harm. These final rules will allow us to use our discretion to withhold the work location and/or telephone number of employees who are victims (or potential victims) of domestic violence. We realize from these comments that the description of our intent was misinterpreted. Therefore, we have rewritten § 402.45(e) to clarify our intent. Although we are issuing these rules as final rules, we are also requesting comments on the text of § 402.45(e), as it differs from what we proposed. Other Changes In our NPRM (71 FR 32494) published on June 6, 2006, we incorrectly identified the text in Appendix A to part 401 we proposed to remove. The correct identification is paragraph (c)(4) of Appendix A to part 401. We have corrected it in these final rules. Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Amended We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and determined that these final rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Thus, they were subject to OMB review. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these final rules do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required. Paperwork Reduction Act These final rules impose no reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB clearance. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects in 20 CFR Parts 401 and 402 Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Privacy. Dated: August 29, 2007. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on Monday, December 3, 2007. For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending Appendix A of part 401 and part 402 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: PART 401—PRIVACY AND DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), 1106, and 1141 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), 1306, and 1320b-11); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923. Appendix A—[Amended] 2. Appendix A is amended by removing paragraph (b)(3)(c)(4). PART 402—AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC 1. The authority citation for part 402 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), and 1106 of the Social Security Act; (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), and 1306); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 18 U.S.C. 1905; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923b; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235. 2. Section 402.45 is amended by adding paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 402.45 Availability of records.
(e)*Federal employees* . We will not disclose information when the information sought is lists of telephone numbers and/or duty stations of one or more Federal employees if the disclosure, as determined at the discretion of the official responsible for custody of the information, would place employee(s) at risk of injury or other harm. Also, we will not disclose the requested information if the information is protected from mandatory disclosure under an exemption of the Freedom of Information Act. [FR Doc. E7-23786 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-309F] Designation of Oripavine as a Basic Class of Controlled Substance; Correction AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Justice. ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments. SUMMARY: On September 24, 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)published in the **Federal Register** a final rule (72 FR 54208) designating oripavine (3-O-demethylthebaine or 6,7,8,14-tetradehydro-4,5- *alpha* -epoxy-6-methoxy-17-methylmorphinan-3-ol) as a basic class in schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The drug code for oripavine was inadvertently designated as 9335, a drug code which is already used to identify a schedule I controlled substance. This correction corrects that error and assigns a different drug code to oripavine. DATES: Effective December 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Sannerud, PhD, Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, by e-mail, *ode@dea.usdoj.gov* or by fax,
(202)353-1263. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 24, 2007, the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)published a Final Rule in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 54208) designating oripavine (3- O-demethylthebaine or 6,7,8,14-tetradehydro-4,5- *alpha* -epoxy-6-methoxy-17-methylmorphinan-3-ol) as a basic class in schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In the final rule, the drug code for oripavine was inadvertently listed as 9335. This is the drug code for the schedule I controlled substance, drotebanol. Upon publication of this rule, the drug code for oripavine will be amended to 9330. Accordingly, 21 CFR part 1308 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 1308.12(b)(1) is amended by revising the entry
(xii)to read as follows: § 1308.12 Schedule II.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(xii)Oripavine 9330 Dated: November 26, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control. [FR Doc. E7-23759 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 49 [EPA-R02-OAR-2004-TR-0001; FRL-8488-9] Approval and Promulgation of Saint Regis Mohawk's Tribal Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
(SRMT)Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). The SRMT TIP contains programs to address ambient air quality standards, emissions inventory, permitting, synthetic minor facilities, source surveillance, open burning, enforcement, review of state permits, and regional haze planning. EPA's action makes the approvable portions of the SRMT TIP, as discussed in this action, federally enforceable. The approvable portions of the TIP are equivalent to current EPA regulations, procedures, or ambient air quality standards. The intended effect of the approved TIP is to protect air quality and population within the exterior boundaries of the SRMT Reservation. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on *January 9, 2008* . ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2004-TR-0001. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-637-4249. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Lau, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007,
(212)637-3708. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45397), EPA published a proposal for the approval of portions of the SRMT TIP. The final action makes federally enforceable the portions of the SRMT TIP that contain programs to address: Ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and ozone (O 3 ); emissions inventory; permitting; synthetic minor facilities; source surveillance; open burning; enforcement; review of state permits; and regional haze planning. EPA is not approving ambient air quality standards in the SRMT TIP for fluoride and metals since they are not equivalent to EPA ambient air quality standards. The SRMT is a federally recognized Indian tribe recognized by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Beginning in 2001, with assistance from EPA, the Tribe began developing a TIP with the goal of protecting the population within the Reservation from air pollution by controlling or abating existing and new sources. Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's regulations, Indian tribes must meet eligibility criteria spelled out in the Act and the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), in order to be treated in the same manner as a state for the purpose of developing an implementation plan. These criteria are:
(1)The Tribe is federally recognized;
(2)the Tribe has a governing body that carries out substantial duties and powers;
(3)the functions the Tribe applied for carrying out pertain to the management and protection of air resources within the exterior boundaries of the reservation (or other areas within the Tribe's jurisdiction); and,
(4)the Tribe is reasonably expected to be capable of performing the functions the Tribe applied to carry out in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act and all applicable regulations. On March 5, 2003, EPA determined that the SRMT met the criteria in the Act and TAR, for treatment in the same manner as a state for the purpose of developing and implementing a TIP. The SRMT did not request an eligibility determination for the area known as the Hogansburg Triangle and EPA made no determination with respect to that area. To support the approval of the TIP, in a Tribal Council Resolution dated December 3, 1999, the SRMT Tribal Council gave the SRMT Environmental Division authority to administer CAA programs on behalf of the tribe. The SRMT adopted the rules comprising the TIP into Tribal Law and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA Region 2 and EPA's Criminal Investigation Division concerning the criminal enforcement of air pollution rules and regulations. The SRMT Police and Conservation Officers will assume enforcement activities for the purpose of compliance with air regulations. The Peacemakers Court-Civil Disobedience Division will be the arbitrator of all summons and complaints filed under the TIP. The SRMT will refer to the appropriate EPA or U.S. Department of Justice Office alleged criminal violations when alleged violators are non-Indian as well as all alleged criminal activity where the fine is greater than $5,000 or the penalty would require imprisonment for more than one year. Other specific details concerning the TIP and rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposed rule and will not be restated here. *Comments:* No adverse comments were received; one supportive comment was received. *Conclusion:* EPA is approving portions of the SRMT TIP and making them federally enforceable. The approved sections of the TIP contain programs to address: Ambient air quality standards for SO <sup>2</sup> , PM, NO <sup>2</sup> , and O <sup>3</sup> ; emissions inventory; permitting; synthetic minor facilities; source surveillance; open burning; enforcement; review of state permits; and regional haze planning. The approved portions of the TIP will help protect air quality within the exterior boundaries of the SRMT Reservation in accordance with Federal requirements. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action approves laws of an eligible Indian tribe as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by Tribal law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under Tribal law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by Tribal law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” EPA has concluded that this rule will have tribal implications in that it will have substantial direct effects on the SRMT. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA is approving the SRMT's TIP at the request of the Tribe. Tribal law will not be preempted as the SRMT has already incorporated the TIP into Tribal Law on October 3, 2002. The Tribe has applied for, and fully supports, the approval of the TIP. This approval makes the TIP federally enforceable. EPA worked and consulted with officials of the SRMT early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. In order to administer an approved TIP, tribes must be determined eligible (40 CFR part 49) for TAS for the purpose of administering a TIP. During the TAS eligibility process, the Tribe and EPA worked together to ensure that the appropriate information was submitted to EPA. SRMT and EPA also worked together throughout the process of development and Tribal adoption of the TIP. The Tribe and EPA also entered into an enforcement MOA. This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)). This action approves a Tribal rule implementing a TIP over areas within the exterior boundaries of the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)), because it is approves a tribal plan implementing Federally equivalent standards. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a TIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a TIP submission, to use VCS in place of a TIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by *February 8, 2008* . Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 22, 2007. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. Part 49 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 49—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 2. Subpart E of Part 49 is amended by adding an undesignated center heading and § 49.471 as follows: Subpart E—Implementation Plans for Tribes—Region II Implementation Plan for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe § 49.471 Identification of plan.
(a)*Purpose and scope* . This section contains the approved implementation plan for the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe dated February 2004. The plan consists of programs and procedures that cover public participation, plan revisions, ambient air quality standards, emissions inventory, permitting, synthetic minor facilities, source surveillance, open burning, enforcement, review of state permits, regional haze planning, and reporting.
(b)*Incorporation by reference* .
(1)Material listed in paragraph
(c)of this section was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the **Federal Register** .
(2)EPA Region II certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the TIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated tribal rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the Tribal Implementation Plan as of December 10, 2007.
(3)Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Region II Office of EPA at 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, MC 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 and the National Archives and Records Administration. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* .
(c)EPA—approved regulations. EPA-Approved St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Regulations Tribal citation Title/subject Tribal effective date EPA approval date Explanations St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Tribal Implementation Plan, version 3, Section 5 Definitions February 2004 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Tribal Implementation Plan, version 3, Section 9 Air Quality Standards February 2004 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] Subsections 9.6 and 9.7 are not part of the Federally approved TIP. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Tribal Implementation Plan, version 3, Section 11 General Permit Requirements February 2004 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Tribal Implementation Plan, version 3, Section 12 Permits for Minor Facilities February 2004 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Tribal Implementation Plan, version 3, Section 13 Synthetic Minor Facilities February 2004 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Tribal Implementation Plan, version 3, Section 14 Source Surveillance February 2004 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] TCR-2002-59 Tribal Burn Regulation February 2004 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] Memorandum of Agreement Memorandum of Agreement dated November 20, 2003, between the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II 11/20/2003 December 10, 2007 [Insert **Federal Register** page number where the document begins] [FR Doc. E7-23718 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0794; FRL-8500-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Amendments to the Control of VOC Emissions From Consumer Products AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This SIP revision pertains to the control of volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions from consumer products based on the 2006 Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC)model rule for consumer products. Maryland's amendments to the consumer products rule include fourteen categories that are new, including subcategories with new product category definitions and VOC limits; one previously regulated category with a more restrictive VOC limit; and two previously regulated categories with additional requirements. EPA is approving this SIP revision in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0794. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* website. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,
(215)814-2182, or by e-mail at *quinto.rose@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On October 4, 2007 (72 FR 56707), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval of amendments to the control of VOC emissions from consumer products. The formal SIP revision (#07-08) was submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE)on June 18, 2007. Maryland's consumer products rule incorporates the changes made by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB)in 2005 that the OTC developed as a model rule for consumer products in 2006. These amendments affect 18 categories of consumer products. Fourteen categories are new, including subcategories with new product category definitions and VOC limits; one previously regulated category with a more restrictive VOC limit; and two previously regulated categories with additional requirements. The compliance date for these categories is January 1, 2009. The new categories are:
(1)Adhesive remover with four subcategories: floor or wall covering, gasket or thread locking, general purpose and specialty;
(2)anti-static product;
(3)electrical cleaner;
(4)electronic cleaner;
(6)fabric refresher;
(7)footwear or leather care product;
(8)hair styling product that will incorporate hair styling gel and include additional forms of hair styling products (i.e.; liquid, semi-solid, and pump spray) but does not include hair spray product or hair mousse;
(9)graffiti remover;
(10)shaving gel;
(11)toilet/urinal care product; and
(12)wood cleaner. The previously regulated category with a more restrictive limit is contact adhesive that has been separated into two subcategories: General purpose and special purpose. The previously regulated categories with additional requirements are air fresheners and general purpose degreasers. The rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. II. Final Action EPA is approving the amendments to the control of VOC emissions from consumer products as a revision to the Maryland SIP. This SIP revision was submitted by MDE on June 18, 2007. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by *February 8, 2008.* Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action pertaining to the amendments of Maryland's consumer products rule, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: November 20, 2007. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by revising entries 26.11.32.01 through 26.11.32.23 and adding entries 26.11.32.24 through 26.11.32.26 to read as follows: § 52.1070 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 * * * * * * * 26.11.32 Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products 26.11.32.01 Applicability and Exemptions 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] 26.11.32.02 Incorporation by Reference 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] 26.11.32.03 Definitions 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] 26.11.32.04 Standards—General 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] 26.11.32.05 Standards—Requirements for Charcoal Lighter Materials 08/18/03 12/09/03 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.06 Standards—Requirements for Aerosol Adhesives 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] 26.11.32.07 Standards—Requirements for Floor Wax Strippers 08/18/03 12/09/03 68 FR 68523 (c)(185). 26.11.32.08 Requirements for Contact Adhesives, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear, or Leather Care Products, and General Purpose Cleaners 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] New Regulation. 26.11.32.09 Requirements for Adhesive Removers, Electrical Cleaners, and Graffiti Removers 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] New Regulation. 26.11.32.10 Requirements for Solid Air Fresheners and Toilet and Urinal Care Products 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] New Regulation. 26.11.32.11 Innovative Products—CARB Exemption 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .08. 26.11.32.12 Innovative Products—Department Exemption 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .09. 26.11.32.13 Administrative Requirements 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing. 26.11.32.14 Reporting Requirements 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .11; Amended. 26.11.32.15 Variances 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .12; Amended. 26.11.32.16 Test Methods 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .13; Amended. 26.11.32.17 Alternative Control Plan
(ACP)06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .14; Amended. 26.11.32.18 Approval of an ACP Application 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .15; Amended. 26.11.32.19 Record Keeping and Availability of Requested Information 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .16. 26.11.32.20 Violations 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .17. 26.11.32.21 Surplus Reduction and Surplus Trading 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .18; Amended. 26.11.32.22 Limited-use surplus reduction credits for early formulations of ACP Products 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .19; Amended. 26.11.32.23 Reconciliation of Shortfalls 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .20; Amended. 26.11.32.24 Modifications to an ACP 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .21; Amended. 26.11.32.25 Cancellation of an ACP 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .22; Amended. 26.11.32.26 Transfer of an ACP 06/18/07 12/10/07 [Insert page number where the document begins] Recodification of existing Regulation .23. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E7-23385 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 72 236 Monday, December 10, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 915 and 944 [Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0054; FV07-915-2 PR] Avocados Grown in South Florida and Imported Avocados; Revision of the Maturity Requirements AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule would revise the maturity requirements currently prescribed for avocados grown in South Florida and for avocados imported into the United States that are shipped to the fresh market. The Avocado Administrative Committee (Committee) which locally administers the marketing order for avocados grown in South Florida recommended the change for Florida avocados. A corresponding change in the import regulation would also be required under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 if this rule was implemented. This rule would require that avocados which fail the maturity requirements and are reworked and presented for reinspection must meet the maturity requirements which correspond to the date of the original inspection. This rule would help ensure only mature avocados are shipped to the fresh market. DATES: Comments must be received by February 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments should be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; *Fax:*
(202)720-8938; or *Internet: http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William G. Pimental, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Manager, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; *Telephone:*
(863)324-3375, *Fax:*
(863)325-8793, or *E-mail: William.Pimental@usda.gov* or *Christian.Nissen@usda.gov,* respectively. Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491, *Fax:*
(202)720-8938, or *E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 121 and Marketing Order No. 915, both as amended (7 CFR part 915), regulating the handling of avocados grown in South Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” This proposed rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including avocados, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities. The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect. This proposed rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act. This proposal invites comments on a revision to the maturity requirements currently prescribed under the order for avocados grown in South Florida. This rule would require that avocados which fail the maturity requirements and are reworked and presented for reinspection must meet the maturity requirements which correspond to the date of the original inspection. This action, unanimously recommended by the Committee, would help ensure that only mature avocados are shipped to the fresh market. Section 915.51 of the order provides the authority to issue regulations establishing specific maturity requirements for avocados grown in South Florida. Section 915.332 of the order's rules and regulations establishes the requisite maturity requirements for avocados. The maturity requirements specify minimum weights, diameters, and shipping dates for approximately 60 different varieties of avocados. These dates and requirements are reflected in the avocado maturity schedule as it appears in Table I of § 915.332(a)(2). Under the terms of the marketing order, fresh market shipments of Florida avocados are required to be inspected and are subject to grade, pack, container, and maturity requirements. The maturity requirements are intended to prevent the shipment of immature avocados to the fresh market. This helps to improve buyer confidence in the marketplace, and fosters increased consumption. This rule would change the way the maturity requirements are currently applied. Specifically, this rule would require avocados which fail maturity requirements and are reworked and presented for reinspection to meet the maturity requirements which correspond to the date of the original inspection. The maturity requirements for avocados are expressed in terms of minimum weights and diameters in conjunction with specific dates during the shipping season. Each regulated variety has its own set of dates and requirements on the maturity schedule. The maturity requirements for the various varieties are different because each variety has its own growing season and stages when the fruit is mature and ready to be harvested. With avocados, the level of maturity is determined by when the avocado is harvested. Because the maturity process ceases once the fruit is severed from the tree, an avocado needs to remain on the tree until it is mature. According to Paul Harding, a plant physiologist for the Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, the stage of maturity of the fruit when harvested is directly related to its palatability and is the most important factor that influences eating quality. 1 Avocados which are not mature at the time of harvest will not ripen properly. Avocados that do not ripen properly can have an unpleasant taste and consistency which negatively affects customer satisfaction. Consequently, the dates on the maturity schedule have been carefully established based on years of testing to ensure avocados shipped using the schedule are mature enough to complete the ripening process. 1 Harding, Paul L. “The Relation of Maturity to Quality in Florida Avocados.” *Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society* 67 (1954):276-280. The maturity schedule is divided into A, B, C, and D dates which reflect the different stages of maturity associated with an individual variety. Larger sized fruit within a variety matures earlier, while smaller fruit needs to remain on the tree longer to reach maturity. Consequently, A dates are associated with larger sizes and are established early in the variety's shipping season. For a majority of varieties, the schedule also includes B and C dates that fall somewhere in between the A and D dates for the particular variety. These dates proceed in stages as the season advances, allowing for the shipment of progressively smaller sizes and weights as a variety matures. The D date marks the end of a variety's marketing season and releases all remaining sizes for shipment to the fresh market. This gradual shift in the maturity standards from the beginning of the season to its end helps ensure that all sizes remain on the tree long enough to reach maturity. As an example, consider the Simmons variety. The A date for the Simmons is the Monday nearest June 20, and requires a minimum weight of 16 ounces or a minimum diameter of 3 9/16 inches for fruit shipped to the fresh market. The corresponding B date is the Monday nearest July 4, and reduces the minimum weight to 14 ounces or a minimum diameter of 3 7/16 inches. The C date is the Monday nearest to July 18, and further reduces the minimum weight and size requirements to 12 ounces or 3 1/16 inches, and the requirements end with a scheduled D date of the Monday nearest to August 1 when all remaining fruit of this variety can be shipped. Over the years, the maturity schedule has been determined to be the best indicator of maturity for the different varieties of avocados grown in Florida, and growers and handlers rely on the schedule in making harvesting, packing, and shipping decisions. The maturity schedule facilitates the shipment of the different varieties of avocados as they mature, and helps ensure that only mature fruit is shipped to the fresh market. This in turn helps promote consumer satisfaction which is essential for the successful marketing of the crop. Florida avocados are inspected for compliance with the rules and regulations established under the order, including the maturity requirements, by the Federal or Federal State Inspection Service. When a lot of avocados fails inspection, the handler has the opportunity to rework the lot to remove the fruit that caused the lot to fail. This usually entails removing any damaged or undersized fruit from the lot. Once the lot has been reworked, the lot is presented for reinspection. However, the Committee has discovered that in some cases where lots fail for maturity, handlers are only holding the avocados until the next date under the maturity schedule and then presenting them for reinspection to benefit from the reduced size and weight requirements rather than reworking the lots to remove undersized fruit. The Committee agreed this practice undermines the purpose of the maturity requirements and results in immature fruit being shipped to the fresh market. Committee members stated the maturity requirements were established to ensure that only mature avocados reach the fresh market. By allowing a handler to just hold the fruit until the next date on the maturity schedule, the overall maturity of the lot is not improved. Because the maturity process ends once the fruit is picked, fruit that fails to meet the maturity standards at the time of inspection will not develop in maturity while being held in the box. The only way to increase the overall maturity of the lot is to remove the fruit which caused the lot to fail at the time of inspection. The Committee believes allowing fruit that failed maturity requirements to be held until the next date on the maturity schedule without being reworked to remove undersized fruit permits immature fruit to be shipped to the fresh market. A lot that fails inspection for maturity can contain a significant amount of avocados which are undersized or underweight. Based on the schedule, this fruit was picked too soon, and most likely did not spend enough time on the tree to reach the proper level of maturity. Because this fruit is immature, it will frequently not ripen properly, and it would have a negative impact on the market and would likely result in the loss of future avocado sales. The requirements associated with the initial inspection correlate more closely with the time of picking and as such remain the best measure of the maturity of the lot. Consequently, the Committee agreed the maturity requirements specified on the schedule at the time of the original inspection should be the requirements applied when the avocados are presented for reinspection. With this change, when avocados fail inspection for maturity, the handler would continue to be allowed to immediately rework the lot to remove undersized and/or underweight fruit and present the lot for reinspection or hold the lot to rework it later. However, the reinspection would be conducted using the maturity requirements for the date the lot was originally presented for inspection regardless of when it is presented for reinspection. Even if a lot is held until the next date on the schedule, the requirements specified for the original inspection would still apply, and the avocados that caused the lot to fail would have to be removed before the lot would pass under a reinspection. This change would make sure undersized and underweight fruit would have to be removed before a lot could meet the necessary requirements which in turn should help further ensure that only mature fruit is being shipped to the fresh market. This change would also make the reinspection procedures for maturity requirements more consistent with those applied for grade requirements. The current grade requirement for avocados is a U.S. No. 2 and is constant throughout the year. The only way for a lot that fails for grade to meet the grade requirement is to have the fruit which caused the lot to fail removed. The Committee believes the process for handling avocados which fail the maturity requirements should be the same. Because the maturity level does not improve by just holding the avocados, the maturity requirements applied to that lot should remain constant as it does with grade. This change would ensure that undersized and underweight fruit are removed prior to reinspection, maintaining the benefits of the maturity schedule. Currently, when a lot of avocados fails inspection, the handler has the option to rework the lot, hold the fruit to be reworked at a later date, dump or destroy the fruit, send the fruit for processing, or donate it to charity. With this change, the handler would have the same options. However, fruit to be reworked for maturity would be segregated and placed under the supervision of the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service using their Positive Lot Identification
(PLI)program to ensure the lot is reworked to meet the minimum maturity requirements specified at the time of the initial inspection. Once the lot, or any portion thereof, is reworked, the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service would reinspect the avocados applying the maturity requirements for the date of the original inspection. Also, all fruit in the lot would need to be accounted for under this process. Therefore, only fruit meeting the initial maturity requirements would be allowed to be shipped to the fresh market. Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including avocados, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this rule would modify maturity requirements under the domestic handling regulations, a corresponding change to the avocado import maturity regulations must also be considered. Minimum grade, quality, and maturity requirements for avocados imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.31 (7 CFR 944.31). The maturity requirements are specified in § 944.31(a)(2). The Hass, Fuerte, Zutano, and Edranol varieties of avocados are exempt from the maturity schedule, and would continue to be exempt under this rule. However, these varieties must meet the minimum grade requirement of a U.S. No. 2 for imported avocados, which would not be changed by this action. This proposal would require that imported avocados which fail the maturity requirements and are reworked and presented for reinspection must meet the maturity requirements which correspond to the date of the original inspection. With this change, fruit to be reworked for maturity would be segregated and placed under the supervision of the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service using their PLI program to ensure the lot is reworked to meet the minimum maturity requirements specified at the time of the initial inspection. Once the lot of avocados, or any portion thereof, is reworked, the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service would reinspect the lot applying the maturity requirements for the date of the original inspection. In addition, all fruit in the lot would need to be accounted for under this process. This would help ensure only mature fruit that will ripen properly is shipped to the fresh market. Consumers prefer fruit that ripens properly. Thus, importers would also benefit from this change in maturity requirements. Import data for calendar years 2002 through 2006 reveals the major exporters of green-skin avocados to the United States are Mexico, Chile, and the Dominican Republic. Imports of green-skin avocados totaled approximately 10,163 metric tons in 2002, 13,770 metric tons in 2003, 8,729 metric tons in 2004, 12,411 metric tons in 2005, and 10,389 metric tons in 2006. The Dominican Republic is the largest supplier of green-skin avocados, accounting for approximately 98 percent of imports. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders. There are approximately 300 producers of avocados in the production area and approximately 35 handlers subject to regulation under the order. There are approximately 65 importers of the type of avocados that are regulated under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms, which include avocado handlers and importers, are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201). According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service and Committee data, the average price for Florida avocados during the 2005-06 season was around $46.75 per 55-pound bushel container, and total shipments were near 470,000 55-pound bushel equivalents. Using the average price and shipment information provided by the Committee, the majority of avocado handlers have annual receipts of less than $6,500,000. In addition, based on avocado production, grower prices, and the total number of Florida avocado growers, the average annual grower revenue is less than $750,000. Based on information from the Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, the dollar value of imported avocados ranged from around $156.7 million in 2003 to $337.5 million in 2005. Using these numbers, the majority of avocado importers have annual receipts of less than $6,500,000. Consequently, the majority of avocado producers, handlers, and importers may be classified as small entities. This proposed rule, recommended by the Committee, would revise the maturity requirements currently prescribed for avocados grown in South Florida and for avocados imported into the United States that are shipped to the fresh market. This proposal would require that avocados which fail the maturity requirements and are reworked and presented for reinspection must meet the maturity requirements which correspond to the date of the original inspection. This rule would help ensure that only mature avocados are shipped to the fresh market. This rule would revise § 915.332, which specifies the requisite maturity requirements. Authority for this action is provided in § 915.51 of the order. This rule would also revise § 944.31, which specifies the maturity requirements for imported avocados. The change in the import regulation is required under section 8e of the Act. This rule could result in some additional costs for handlers and importers. These costs would be associated primarily with the cost to rework the lot and the added inspection costs associated with having Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service supervision of lots that fail for maturity. However, these costs are expected to be minimal and should apply to no more than a few shipments each year as only a very small percentage of lots fail for maturity. The vast majority of handlers and importers are already reworking lots that fail for maturity to remove the undersized and underweight avocados that caused the lot to fail. Consequently, reworking lots which fail for maturity is already a standard practice for most of the industry, and as such would not represent an additional cost for most handlers and importers. In addition, this rule could encourage more careful spot picking to ensure that the avocados are of the proper size or weight to meet the requirements of the maturity schedule. However, spot picking is a standard industry practice, so this should not result in any additional cost. Therefore, in most cases, any additional costs resulting from this change would be from the added inspection costs associated with the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service supervision of failing lots. Based on information provided by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service, the added cost would be based on the time it takes to apply the PLI program. For most handlers and importers, this should be accomplished in an hour or less. Consequently, the added cost would be based on the standard hourly rate charged by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service. These costs could range from as low as $22.00 per hour to $64.00 per hour for a lot of avocados. In situations where a lot is reworked immediately, the handler or importer may not even accrue any additional charges. With average lot sizes ranging from approximately 100 55-pound cartons of avocados for a small lot to large lots containing approximately 800 55-pound cartons, and with avocados selling for a season average of around $46.75 per 55-pound container, the cost of inspection would be a small percentage of the total value of the lot. Consequently, considering the possible added costs associated with this change, and the small number of lots affected, the overall costs associated with this rule are expected to be minimal. Florida avocado producers and handlers have found that the maturity requirements have been beneficial in the successful marketing of their avocado crop. Experience has shown when immature avocados are found in market channels, they tend to have a price depressing effect on the market and negatively affect repeat purchases. Preventing the shipment of immature avocados improves buyer confidence in the marketplace, and fosters increased consumption. This change is expected to provide added assurance that the avocados marketed are of satisfactory maturity and will ripen properly which is expected to further promote customer satisfaction. This proposal is expected to similarly impact importers of avocados. Non-exempt varieties of imported avocados have met the minimum weight or diameter maturity requirements in past seasons, and this is expected to continue. Thus, USDA believes this proposed change would not limit the quantity of imported avocados or place an undue burden on exporters, or importers of avocados. The marketplace price and quality benefits expected for Florida growers and handlers as a result of this proposal would also benefit exporters and importers of avocados. As most handlers and importers are already reworking lots which fail for maturity to remove undersized and underweight fruit, this change is not expected to impact the total number of avocado shipments. It is, however, expected to have a positive effect in the marketplace by helping to ensure only mature avocados are reaching the market which in turn should provide a strong price base for the industry. This proposed rule may impose some additional costs on producers, handlers, and importers. However, the costs are expected to be minimal, and would be offset by the benefits of the proposal. This proposed action would benefit consumers, producers, handlers, and importers by providing consumers with a better, more mature piece of fruit. The costs and benefits of this rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less significant for small entities than for large entities. One alternative to this action considered was to make no change. However, the Committee believes this was not an acceptable alternative as it could result in immature avocados reaching the fresh market. The Committee agreed that allowing immature avocados to reach the fresh market would be detrimental to the industry as a whole. Therefore, this alternative was rejected. AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. This rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large avocado handlers or importers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the avocado industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the meeting where this action was recommended was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html* . Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this proposed rule. A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter. List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 915 Avocados, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 7 CFR Part 944 Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges. For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR parts 915 and 944 are proposed to be amended as follows: PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN SOUTH FLORIDA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 915 and 944 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. A new paragraph (a)(3) is added to § 915.332 to read as follows: § 915.332 Florida avocado maturity regulation.
(a)* * *
(3)Avocados which fail to meet the maturity requirements specified in this section must be maintained under the supervision of the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service using the Positive Lot Identification program, and when presented for reinspection, must meet the maturity requirements which correspond to the date of the original inspection. PART 944—FRUITS; IMPORT REGULATIONS 3. A new paragraph (a)(3) is added to § 944.31 to read as follows: § 944.31 Avocado import maturity regulation.
(a)* * *
(3)Avocados which fail to meet the maturity requirements specified in this section must be maintained under the supervision of the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service using the Positive Lot Identification program, and when presented for reinspection, must meet the maturity requirements which correspond to the date of the original inspection. Dated: December 4, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-23827 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0299; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-239-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB 2000 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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)originated 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: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * [which] required * * * [conducting] a design review against explosion risks. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. 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 January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1112; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2007-0299; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-239-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 based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0167, dated June 15, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which renders mandatory the modification [6089] of improving the sealing of Fuel Access Doors, is a consequence of the design review. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Saab Modification 6089 includes removing the fuel tank access doors and the old type of clamp rings and gaskets; installing new, improved clamp rings; re-installing the fuel tank access doors; and doing related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. Related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions include inspecting for corrosion of the wing skin panel and access door areas, and, as applicable, replacing wear protection; contacting Saab and doing repairs if doubler flange is less than specified thickness; replacing any corroded or damaged foil panel; replacing any damaged sealing ring; removing corrosion from the wing skin panel; inspecting the access doors for damage and correct installation of the aluminum panel on the access door; and, as applicable, replacing the aluminum panel or the entire access door. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Saab has issued Service Bulletins 2000-57-033, dated March 2, 2000, and Revision 01, dated March 31, 2000. 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an 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 highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 130 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,400 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 $100,800, or $16,800 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Saab Aircraft AB:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0299; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-239-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by January 9, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Saab Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 57: Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the JAA (Joint Aviation Authorities) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which renders mandatory the modification [6089] of improving the sealing of Fuel Access Doors, is a consequence of the design review. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do Modification 6089 and all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-57-033, dated March 2, 2000; or Revision 01, dated March 31, 2000. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1112; fax
(425)227-1149. 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.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0167, dated June 15, 2007; Saab Service Bulletin 2000-57-033, dated March 2, 2000; and Saab Service Bulletin 2000-57-033, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2000; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 30, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23869 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0286; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-086-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC A, B, and F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD)AD 2007-16-14, which applies to all Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC (Taylorcraft) A, B, and F series airplanes. AD 2007-16-14 currently requires you to do an initial visual inspection of the left and right wing front and aft lift struts for cracks and corrosion and replace any cracked strut or strut with corrosion that exceeds certain limits. If the strut is replaced with an original design vented strut, AD 2007-16-14 requires you to repetitively inspect those struts thereafter. Since we issued AD 2007-16-14, we determined that the eddy current inspection method does not address the unsafe condition for the long term. We also determined that Models FA-III and TG-6 airplanes are not equipped with the affected struts. Consequently, this proposed AD would retain the actions required in AD 2007-16-14, except it removes the eddy current inspection method (provides 24-month credit if already done using this method), adds the radiograph method as an inspection method, changes the Applicability section, and changes the compliance time between the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct cracks and corrosion in the right and left wing front and aft lift struts. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the lift strut and lead to in-flight separation of the wing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone: 956-986-0700. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; fax:
(210)308-3370. 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-2007-0286; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-086-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://www.regulations.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 Reports of several corroded vented wing lift struts from different Taylorcraft series airplanes caused us to issue AD 2007-16-14, Amendment 39-15153 (72 FR 45153, August 13, 2007). AD 2007-16-14 currently requires the following on all Taylorcraft A, B, and F series airplanes: • Initial visual inspection of the left and right wing front and aft lift struts for cracks and corrosion; • Replacement of any cracked strut or strut with corrosion that exceeds certain limits with either sealed or vented struts; and • Repetitive eddy current or ultrasound inspection of any vented lift struts. Since issuing AD 2007-16-14, we received several comments concerning the AD. We reviewed all comments submitted to the docket. The following are significant comments that influenced our decision to propose superseding AD 2007-16-14 with a new AD: Comment FAA discussion We received several requests to use the radiograph inspection method as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)for doing the repetitive strut inspection We approved the radiograph inspection procedure as an AMOC for the repetitive inspections required in AD 2007-16-14, and the manufacturer has added the procedures for the radiograph inspection to their revised service bulletin. We received several requests to increase the compliance time between repetitive inspections because the Taylorcraft service information requires the application of corrosion inhibitor to the interior of the strut at each inspection. The commenters also requested a longer compliance time between repetitive inspections for land planes compared to float equipped planes Based on the inspection methods used and the requirement to apply corrosion inhibitor to the strut interior at each inspection, we believe there is not an increased safety risk to the public by increasing the compliance time between the repetitive inspections from 24 months to 48 months for all airplanes. We do not have sufficient information to determine if a different inspection interval for land and float equipped airplanes is valid. We received a request to use Univair part numbers (P/N) UA-A815 and UA-854 as a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement on Taylorcraft Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 airplanes We have approved using these parts as an AMOC to AD 2007-16-14. We received several requests to install used vented lift struts that have been inspected using the criteria specified in paragraph (e)(2) of AD 2007-16-14 We did not intend to preclude owners from installing these parts. Vented lift struts that are inspected using the ultrasound or radiograph inspection method, that meet the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007, and that are treated with internal corrosion protection are considered new struts. In addition to the comments above, we also received several reports of the following: • The eddy current inspection method currently required in AD 2007-16-14 may not adequately address the unsafe condition for the long term; and • Models FA-III (Airphibian) and TG-6 Conversion airplanes do not have the affected struts installed. The following is a significant comment that did not influence our decision to propose superseding AD 2007-16-14 with a new AD: Comment FAA discussion We received several requests to use the Maule Fabric Tester as an AMOC for doing the repetitive strut inspection Testing of Taylorcraft strut samples with the Maule Fabric Tester shows that both 1025 steel material, and to a greater degree 4130 steel material, resist showing a positive dent indication until a major portion of the wall thickness is consumed. Taylorcraft used 4130 steel in a majority of their wing struts during production. We have not received any data substantiating that Taylorcraft wing struts can still carry required certification loads at the reduced strut wall material thickness indicated in the testing. Cracks and corrosion in the right and left wing front and aft lift struts, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of the wing lift strut and lead to in-flight separation of the wing. Relevant Service Information We reviewed Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007. The service information describes procedures for wing lift strut assembly corrosion inspection and/or replacement. 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 2007-16-14 with a new AD that would do the following: • Retain the actions of AD 2007-16-14; • Remove the eddy current inspection method, but allow a 24-month credit for those who already inspected once using the eddy current method; • Remove Models FA-III (Airphibian) and TG-6 Conversion airplanes from the Applicability section; • Add the radiograph inspection method; • Increase the time interval between the repetitive inspections; • Allow the installation of Univair P/Ns UA-A815 and UA-854 on Taylorcraft Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 airplanes as a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement; and • Allow the installation of used vented lift struts that have been inspected using ultrasound or radiograph inspection methods, meet the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007, and have corrosion inhibitor applied to the interior of the strut. These lift struts are then subject to the repetitive 48-month inspection thereafter. We have determined that the Maule Fabric Tester is not a viable AMOC to this AD. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 3,119 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed visual inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 Not applicable $80 $249,520 We estimate the following costs to do the proposed repetitive ultrasound or radiograph inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 Not applicable $320 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane to replace all 4 wing lift struts 4 work-hours to replace all 4 struts × $80 per hour = $320 Sealed front lift strut: $835 per strut. 2 per airplane = $1,670 Sealed aft lift strut: $638 per strut. 2 per airplane = $1,276 $1,670 + $1,276 + $320 = $3,266. Original design vented lift struts are no longer manufactured. We have no way of determining the cost associated with obtaining a useable vented strut. The estimated total cost on U.S. operators includes the cumulative costs associated with AD 2007-16-14 and any actions being added in this proposed AD. 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://www.regulations.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)647-5527) 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)2007-16-14, Amendment 39-15153 (72 FR 45153, August 13, 2007), and by adding a new AD to read as follows: **Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0286; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-086-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by January 9, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2007-16-14, Amendment 39-15153. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all serial numbers of Taylorcraft Models A, BC, BCS, BC-65, BCS-65, BC12-65 (Army L-2H), BCS12-65, BC12-D, BCS12-D, BC12-D1, BCS12-D1, BC12D-85, BCS12D-85, BC12D-4-85, BCS12D-4-85, (Army L-2G) BF, BFS, BF-60, BFS-60, BF-65, (Army L-2K) BF 12-65, BFS-65, BL, BLS, (Army L-2F) BL-65, BLS-65, (Army L-2J) BL12-65, BLS12-65, 19, F19, F21, F21A, F21B, F22, F22A, F22B, and F22C airplanes that:
(1)Are certificated in any category; and
(2)Do not incorporate sealed wing front lift struts, part number (P/N) MA-A815, Univair P/N UA-A815 (for Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 only), or FAA-approved equivalent P/N, and sealed aft lift struts, P/N MA-A854, Univair P/N UA-854 (for Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 only), or FAA-approved equivalent P/N, for all struts. Note 1: This AD applies to all Taylorcraft models listed above, including those models not listed in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007. If there are any other differences between this AD and the above service bulletin, this AD takes precedence. Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a used strut that has been inspected using the ultrasound or radiograph inspection method, meets the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007, and is treated with internal corrosion protection, is considered a new strut. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from our determination that the radiograph inspection method should be used in place of the eddy current inspection method currently required in AD 2007-16-14. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion or cracks in the right and left wing front and aft lift struts, which could result in failure of the lift strut and lead to in-flight separation of the wing with consequent loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Visually inspect the right and left wing front and aft lift struts, (P/N A-A815 and P/N A-A854, or FAA-approved equivalent P/Ns), along the entire bottom 12 inches of each strut for cracks and corrosion Within the next 5 hours TIS after August 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-16-14), unless one of the following conditions is met:
(i)The struts have been replaced with parts specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this AD. No further action is required on those struts
(ii)The struts have been replaced with parts specified in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD and have been installed for less than 48 months. No visual inspection is required. These parts are now subject to the repetitive inspection requirement specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this AD Follow Part 1 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision A, dated August 1, 2007; or Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007.
(2)If any cracks are found during the visual inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace the cracked strut with the following applicable strut: Before further flight after the visual inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Following the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007.
(i)A sealed front lift strut, P/N MA-A815, Univair P/N UA-A815 (for Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 only), or FAA-approved equivalent P/N, a sealed aft lift strut, P/N MA-A854, Univair P/N UA-854 (for Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 only), or FAA-approved equivalent P/N. Installing these lift struts terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD for that strut and no further action is required
(ii)A new vented front lift strut, P/N A-A815, a new vented aft lift strut, P/N A-A854, or FAA-approved equivalent P/Ns, that is treated with internal corrosion protection specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007. Installing one of these lift struts is subject to the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (e)(4) of this AD
(3)If corrosion is found during the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, do an ultrasound or radiograph inspection to determine if the corrosion exceeds the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007 Before further flight after the visual inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Part 2 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007. All ultrasound or radiograph inspections required by this AD must be done by one of the following:
(i)A Level II or III inspector certified in the applicable ultrasound or radiograph inspection method using the guidelines established by the American Society of Nondestructive Testing or NAS 410 (formerly MIL-STD-410);
(ii)An inspector certified to specific FAA or other acceptable government or industry standards, such as Air Transport Association
(ATA)Specifications 105-Guidelines for Training and Qualifying Personnel in Nondestructive Testing Methods; or
(iii)An FAA Repair Station or a Testing/ Inspection Laboratory qualified to do ultrasound or radiograph inspections.
(4)If no corrosion or cracks are found during the visual inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, or if the inspection required in paragraph (e)(3) reveals that the corrosion does not exceed the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007, repetitively inspect thereafter using the ultrasound or radiograph inspection method and treat with internal corrosion protection until all struts are replaced with the sealed struts specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this AD. If any cracks are found or corrosion is found that exceeds the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007, during any of the repetitive inspections required by this AD, take the necessary corrective actions as applicable in paragraph (e)(5) of this AD
(i)Initially inspect within the next 3 months after August 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-16-14) or within 48 months after installing a lift strut specified in paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later
(ii)Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months, except as required by paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this AD
(iii)If the initial inspection was done using the eddy current method as specified in AD 2007-16-14, the first ultrasound or radiograph repetitive inspection must be done within the next 24 months after doing the eddy current inspection. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months using the ultrasound or radiograph inspection method Follow Part 2 of the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007, using the ultrasound or radiograph inspection method.
(5)If, during any inspection required in paragraphs (e)(3) or (e)(4) of this AD, any cracks are found or it is determined that the corrosion exceeds the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007, replace the lift strut with the applicable lift strut specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD Before further flight after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(3) or (e)(4) of this AD Following the Instructions in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007.
(6)Do not install P/N A-A815, P/N A-A854, or FAA-approved equivalent P/N, unless: As of 5 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD Not applicable.
(i)within the last 48 months it has been inspected using the ultrasound or radiograph method;
(ii)meets the Acceptance/Rejection Criteria; and
(iii)is treated with internal corrosion protection as specified in Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC Service Bulletin No. 2007-001, Revision B, dated October 15, 2007
(7)As a terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD, all vented lift struts (P/Ns A-A815, A-A854, and FAA-approved equivalent P/Ns) may be replaced with sealed lift struts (P/Ns MA-A815, UA-A815 (for Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 only), MA-A854, UA-854 (for Models BC12-D/D1 and BCS12-D/D1 only), or FAA-approved equivalent P/Ns) At any time after the effective date of this AD Not applicable. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; fax:
(210)308-3370. 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 2007-16-14 are approved for this AD. Related Information
(h)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC, 2124 North Central Avenue, Brownsville, Texas 78521; telephone: 956-986-0700. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 3, 2007. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23860 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0298; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-238-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and Model SAAB 340B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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)originated 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: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * [which] required * * * [conducting] a design review against explosion risks. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. 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 January 9, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1112; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-2007-0298; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-238-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 based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0168, dated June 15, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which renders mandatory the modification [2762] of improving the sealing of Fuel Access Doors, is a consequence of the design review. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Modification 2762 includes removing the fuel tank access doors and the old type of clamp rings and gaskets, installing new, improved clamp rings and re-installing the fuel tank access doors, and doing related investigative and applicable corrective actions. Related investigative and applicable corrective actions include inspecting for corrosion of the wing skin panel, access door areas, and access doors; removing any corrosion found during the inspection; and replacing the access door protection plate with a new protection plate. Corrosion removal also includes inspecting the doubler flange and contacting Saab and doing repairs if the doubler flange thickness does not meet minimum specifications. Additional corrective actions include replacing conductive foil on the access door with an aluminum panel. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Saab has issued Service Bulletin 340-57-031, Revision 02, dated September 28, 2005; and Service Bulletin 340-57-010, dated March 28, 1989. 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an 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 highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 168 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $417 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 about $338,856, or about $2,017 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: **Saab Aircraft AB:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0298; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-238-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by January 9, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Saab Model SAAB SF340A and Model SAAB 340B airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 004 through 401. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 57: Wings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA recommended the application of a similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3402 kg) or more, which have received their certification since January 1, 1958, are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which renders mandatory the modification [2762] of improving the sealing of Fuel Access Doors, is a consequence of the design review. The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Modification 2762 includes removing the fuel tank access doors and the old type of clamp rings and gaskets, installing new, improved clamp rings and re-installing the fuel tank access doors, and doing related investigative and applicable corrective actions. Related investigative and applicable corrective actions include inspecting for corrosion of the wing skin panel, access door areas, and access doors; removing any corrosion found during the inspection; and replacing the access door protection plate with a new protection plate. Corrosion removal also includes inspecting the doubler flange and contacting Saab and doing repairs if the doubler flange thickness does not meet minimum specifications. Additional corrective actions include replacing conductive foil on the access door with an aluminum panel. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the actions described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
(1)Do modification 2762 and all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-57-031, Revision 02, dated September 28, 2005. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Service Bulletin 340-57-031, dated September 4, 1996; or Revision 01, dated June 28, 1999; are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(2)For airplanes identified in Saab Service Bulletin 340-57-010, dated March 28, 1989, do the additional corrective actions described in and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of that service bulletin. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI does not require doing the actions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-57-010, which is specified in Saab Service Bulletin 340-57-031, Revision 02, as the appropriate source of service information for doing additional corrective actions for certain airplanes to completely address the unsafe condition. This AD requires accomplishing the additional corrective actions described in Service Bulletin 340-57-010 for certain airplanes. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1112; fax
(425)227-1149. 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.
(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
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0168, dated June 15, 2007; Saab Service Bulletin 340-57-031, Revision 02, dated September 28, 2005; and Saab Service Bulletin 340-57-010, dated March 28, 1989; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 30, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-23870 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29058; Airspace Docket 07-ASO-21] Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Jacksonville Whitehouse NOLF, FL AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class D airspace at Jacksonville Whitehouse Naval Out Lying Field (NOLF), FL. As a result of an evaluation, it has been determined the Class D airspace should be reduced at Jacksonville NOLF. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29058/Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-21, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone
(404)305-5610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2007-29058/Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-21.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRMs An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.regulations.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* . Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace at Jacksonville Whitehouse NOLF, FL. The current Class D airspace supports the Airport Surveillance Radar
(ASR)Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP)at Jacksonville Whitehouse NOLF. This proposed action would reduce the Class D airspace area and contain the SIAP. Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9R, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore,
(1)is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it has been determined the Class D airspace should be reduced at Jacksonville NOLF. 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, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400-9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO FL D Jacksonville Whitehouse NOLF, FL [Revised] Jacksonville Whitehouse NOLF, FL (Lat. 30°21′01″ N, long. 81°52′59″ W) Herlong Airport (Lat. 30°16′40″ N, long. 81°48′21″ W) That airspace extending upward from the surface, to and including 2,600 feet MSL, within a 4.3-mile radius of Whitehouse NOLF; excluding that airspace within the Jacksonville Cecil Field Class D airspace area and that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Herlong Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 9, 2007. Barry A. Knight, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. 07-5983 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 45
Traces to 45 documents
U.S. Code
- Purposes§ 6501
- Accreditation program§ 6514
- National organic production program§ 6503
- State organic certification program§ 6507
- Recordkeeping, investigations, and enforcement§ 6519
- Definitions§ 601
- Congressional statement of findings§ 451
- Congressional statement of findings§ 1031
- Short title§ 301
- Definitions§ 136
- Administrative appeal§ 6520
- Definitions§ 601
- Purposes§ 3501
- National List§ 6517
- Rule making§ 553
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments§ 405
- Establishment of central file; information from other departments and agencies§ 1360
- Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information§ 6103
- Filing of notice of claim§ 923
- Disclosure of confidential information generally§ 1905
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- Authority and criteria for classification of substances§ 811
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
register
CFR
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Special conditions.§ 21.16
- What public comment procedures does the FAA follow for Special Conditions?§ 11.38
- Issue of type certificate: import products.§ 21.29
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Special flight permits.§ 21.197
- Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure.§ 25.571
- Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 and 125 and §§ 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter.§ 43.11
- General.§ 91.403
- Requests handled outside of the FOIA process.§ 402.45
- Original identification of plan section.§ 52.1100
- Applicability.§ 71.1
20 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 205
- 5 CFR 1320
- 7 USC 6501-6522
- 14 CFR 23
- 14 CFR 21
- 14 CFR 36
- 14 CFR 34
- 14 CFR 39
- 1 CFR 51
- 20 CFR 401
- 30 USC 923b
- 21 CFR 1308
- 40 CFR 49
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 40 CFR 52
- 7 CFR 915
- 7 USC 601-674
- 7 CFR 944.31
- 7 CFR 944
- 14 CFR 71
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Cite7 CFR 205
Cite5 CFR 1320
Cite7 USC 6501-6522
Cites 65 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources