Notices. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

12,557 words·~57 min read·/register/2008/02/21/08-722

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 35 Thursday, February 21, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28503; Notice No. 08-01] RIN 2120-AJ04 Airworthiness Standards; Fire Protection AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This notice proposes to change aircraft engine fire protection certification standards to upgrade and harmonize them with European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)requirements. The proposed changes, if adopted, would provide nearly uniform fire protection certification standards for engines certificated in the United States under 14 CFR part 33 and in European countries under EASA Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E), and would simplify international type certification. DATES: Send your comments on or before May 21, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-28503 using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov/* and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Bring comments to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Operations at 202-493-2251. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published April 11, 2000 [65 FR 19477-78] or you may visit *http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov* . *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Bouthillier, Engine and Propeller Directorate Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone

(781)238-7120; fax

(781)238-7199; e-mail *marc.bouthillier@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 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 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, including minimum safety standards for aircraft engines. This proposed rule is within the scope of that authority because it updates the existing regulations for aircraft engine fire protection. Background Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 33) prescribes airworthiness standards for original and amended type certificates for aircraft engines certificated in the United States (U.S.). The Certification Specifications for Engines (CS-E) prescribe corresponding airworthiness standards for aircraft engine certification in Europe by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). While part 33 and the European regulations are similar, they differ in several respects. These differences can result in additional costs and delays. In 1989, the FAA met with the European Joint Aviation Authorities, U.S. and European aviation industry representatives to harmonize U.S. and European certification standards. Transport Canada subsequently joined this effort. The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee

(ARAC)through its Engine Harmonization Working Group to review existing regulations and recommend changes to eliminate differences in U.S. and European engine certification fire protection standards. This proposed rule is based on Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee

(ARAC)recommendations to the FAA. General Discussion of the Proposal This notice proposes to change the fire protection standards for issuing original and amended aircraft engine type certificates. This proposal results from an effort to improve and harmonize Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR part 33 with the European requirements of EASA CS-E. The proposal addresses ARAC recommendations, concurred with by industry, and based on language generally common to both part 33 and CS-E. Our proposed changes would provide nearly uniform fire protection certification standards for engines certificated in the United States under part 33 and in Europe under EASA CS-E, thereby simplifying aircraft engine import and export activities. The proposal also reflects current industry design and FAA certification practices. Section 33.17 Fire Protection Section 33.17 sets standards for fire prevention and protection in the design and construction of aircraft engines. Our proposal would change the section title from “Fire Prevention” to “Fire Protection” and harmonize the section with CS-E standards. We propose to modify the section as follows:

(1)Clarify existing requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e),

(2)Delete current requirements for supersonic engines from paragraph (d), and add new requirements for components acting as firewalls,

(3)Renumber paragraph

(e)as new paragraph (f),

(4)Add new paragraph

(e)to specify requirements for engine control systems; and

(5)Add new paragraph

(g)to include requirements for electrical bonding. Our proposed change to paragraph

(b)would differentiate between drain lines and other components and would not apply to certain drain lines. This revision would be consistent with our fire protection requirements in §§ 23.1183(b)(2), 25.1183(b)(2), 27.1183(b)(2), and 29.1183(b)(2). Proposed paragraph

(c)adds “associated shut-off means” to the first sentence; changes “must be fireproof or be enclosed by fireproof shield” to “must be fireproof by construction or protection”; and incorporates the term “hazardous quantity”. The addition of the term “shutoff means” adds tank shutoff devices to the rule's applicability, and thereby provides additional margin against feeding a fire from a flammable fluid tank due to failure of such a device. A shutoff means can be separate from the tank itself, but is an integral part of the tank system and needs to be considered under these fire protection requirements. Other proposed changes are clarifying in nature and would harmonize U.S. and European standards. The FAA proposes to remove the requirements in current paragraph

(d)in response to recommendations resulting from an FAA/ARAC review of an industry study on supersonic transports. The study concluded the maximum temperature levels of controls and accessories installed in supersonic aircraft were not significantly greater than maximum temperature levels of components installed in subsonic applications. The study showed that components used on supersonic applications required no additional fire protection because the severity, frequency, and duration of fire would be similar to those found in subsonic applications. The study showed, and we agree, that additional fire protection is not required for these components. Proposed new paragraph

(d)would require that even though the noted components do not contain or convey flammable fluids, by their definition, they must be fireproof. This proposal will add requirements consistent with §§ 23.1191, 25.1191, 27.1191, and 29.1191 “Firewalls”. We propose to redesignate current paragraph

(e)as paragraph

(f)and rephrase the text for clarity. Our new proposed paragraph

(e)would address engine control system effects when associated components are exposed to a fire. Control system components (for example, electronic, fiber optic, hydromechanical) should not cause any hazardous effects when exposed to fire, and should be addressed in the fire protection section. These proposed new requirements would be consistent with the associated aircraft requirements. The designated fire zones in new paragraph

(e)are defined in existing §§ 23.1181, 25.1181, and 29.1181. Our proposed paragraph

(g)would minimize static discharge sources of ignition for flammable fluids or vapors. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that no new information collection requirements are associated with this proposed rule. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, FAA policy is to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. We determined that no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to these proposed regulations. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation from the base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this Order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. Presently, turbine airplane engine manufacturers must satisfy both the FAA and the EASA certification standards in order for airplane manufacturers to market airplanes with those engines in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two different sets of certification requirements can raise the cost of developing a new airplane engine without increasing safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering the cost of airplane engine development, making the certification process more efficient, and enhancing safety, the FAA, EASA, and airplane engine manufacturers have been working to create to the maximum possible extent a common set of certification requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. The FAA estimates that there would be minimal costs associated with this proposed rule. A review of information provided by manufacturers of turbine airplane engines certificated under part 33 has revealed that all such future airplane engines are expected to be certificated under both FAA and EASA standards. As this proposed rule would unify these requirements in a common international standard, and certificated turbine airplane engines currently meet both sets of requirements, manufacturers would incur minimal additional costs from this proposed rule. In fact, manufacturers are expected to receive cost-savings from a reduction in the amount of duplicate documentation of tests for the two different sets of requirements. Further, the proposed rule would codify existing industry practices into the regulations. The FAA has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may accrue due to this specific proposed rule, beyond noting that while they may be minimal, they would contribute to a potential harmonization savings. The agency has made that conclusion based on the consensus among potentially affected airplane engine manufacturers. Further, the current level of safety would be enhanced as a result of the proposed rule. As a result, the FAA has concluded that this proposed rule would be cost beneficial. The FAA requests comments regarding this determination. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)

(RFA)establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. The FAA concluded that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two reasons. First, as noted earlier, the net effect of the proposed rule would provide regulatory cost relief. Second, all United States turbine airplane engine manufacturers but one, exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane engine manufacturers. United States transport category airplane engine manufacturers include: General Electric, CFM International, Pratt & Whitney, International Aero Engines, Rolls-Royce Corporation, Honeywell, and Williams International. Williams International is the only one of these manufacturers that is a U.S. small business. Given that we believe this proposed rule would reduce costs, and that only one part 33-airplane engine manufacturer currently qualifies as a small entity, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined it responds to a domestic safety objective and is not considered an unnecessary barrier to trade. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action 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, and therefore would not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. We determined that this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary circumstances. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Additional Information Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. Comments filed after the comment period closes are considered if possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments received. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information Do not file in the docket information that you consider proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:

(1)Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ),

(2)Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* , or

(3)Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 33 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 33) as follows: PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704. 2. Section 33.17 is revised to read as follows: § 33.17 Fire protection.

(a)The design and construction of the engine and the materials used must minimize the probability of the occurrence and spread of fire during normal operation and failure conditions, and must minimize the effect of such a fire. In addition, the design and construction of turbine engines must minimize the probability of the occurrence of an internal fire that could result in structural failure or other hazardous effects.

(b)Except as provided in paragraph

(c)of this section, each external line, fitting, and other component, which contains or conveys flammable fluid during normal engine operation must be fire resistant or fireproof, as applicable. Components must be shielded or located to safeguard against the ignition of leaking flammable fluid.

(c)A tank, which contains flammable fluids and any associated shut-off means and supports, which are part of and attached to the engine, must be fireproof either by construction or by protection unless damage by fire will not cause leakage or spillage of a hazardous quantity of flammable fluid. For a reciprocating engine having an integral oil sump of less than 23.7 liters capacity, the oil sump need not be fireproof or enclosed by a fireproof shield.

(d)An engine component designed, constructed, and installed to act as a firewall must be:

(1)Fireproof,

(2)Constructed so that no hazardous quantity of air, fluid or flame can pass around or through the firewall, and,

(3)Protected against corrosion,

(e)In addition to the requirements of paragraphs

(a)and

(b)of this section, engine control system components that are located in a designated fire zone must be fire resistant or fireproof, as applicable.

(f)Unintentional accumulation of hazardous quantities of flammable fluid within the engine must be prevented by draining and venting.

(g)Any components, modules, or equipment, which are susceptible to or are potential sources of static discharges or electrical fault currents must be designed and constructed to be properly grounded to the engine reference, in order to minimize the risk of ignition in external areas where flammable fluids or vapors could be present. Issued in Washington, DC on February 12, 2008. Dorenda D. Baker, Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3271 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-262-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR Airplanes, and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP 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: Fuel system reassessment, performed according to RBHA-E88/SFAR-88 (Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologacao Aeronautica 88/Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88), requires the inclusion of new maintenance tasks in the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) and in the Fuel System Limitations (FSL), necessary to preclude ignition sources in the fuel system. * * * 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 March 24, 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1405; 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-2008-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-262-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 Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-08-02, effective September 27, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Fuel system reassessment, performed according to RBHA-E88/SFAR-88 (Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologacao Aeronautica 88/Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88), requires the inclusion of new maintenance tasks in the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) and in the Fuel System Limitations (FSL), necessary to preclude ignition sources in the fuel system. * * * The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

(ICA)to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. 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. 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 EMBRAER has issued Sections A2.5.2, Fuel System Limitation Items, and A2.4, Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL), of Appendix 2 of Embraer EMB-135/ERJ-140/EMB-145 Maintenance Review Board Report

(MRBR)MRB-145/1150, Revision 10, dated August 4, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with 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. Explanation of Compliance Time In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed 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 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 704 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $56,320, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-262-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by March 24, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Embraer Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes, and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category; except for Model EMB-145LR airplanes modified according to Brazilian Supplemental Type Certificate 2002S06-09, 2002S06-10, or 2003S08-01. **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

(g)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Fuel system reassessment, performed according to RBHA-E88/SFAR-88, requires the inclusion of new maintenance tasks in the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) and in the Fuel System Limitations (FSL), necessary to preclude ignition sources in the fuel system. * * * The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

(ICA)to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)The term “MRBR,” as used in this AD, means the Embraer EMB-135/ERJ-140/EMB-145 Maintenance Review Board Report

(MRBR)MRB-145/1150, Revision 10, dated August 4, 2006.

(2)Before December 16, 2008, revise the ALS of the ICA to incorporate Section A2.5.2, Fuel System Limitation Items, of Appendix 2 of the MRBR. For all tasks identified in Section A2.5.2 of Appendix 2 of the MRBR, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD; and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Section A2.5.2 of Appendix 2 of the MRBR, except as provided by paragraphs (f)(4) and

(g)of this AD.

(i)The effective date of this AD.

(ii)The date of issuance of the original Brazilian standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Brazilian export certificate of airworthiness.

(3)Before December 16, 2008, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, revise the ALS of the ICA to incorporate items 1, 2, and 3 of Section A2.4, Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL), of Appendix 2 of the MRBR.

(4)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Appendix 2 of the MRBR that is approved by the Manager, ANM-116, FAA, or ANAC (or its delegated agent); or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. FAA AD Differences **Note 2:** This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI specifies a compliance date of “Before December 31, 2008” for doing the ALI revisions. We have already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this AD, we are using this same compliance date in this AD. 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone

(425)227-1405; 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 Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-08-02, effective September 27, 2007; and Sections A2.5.2, Fuel System Limitation Items, and A2.4, Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL), of Appendix 2 of the MRBR; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 13, 2008. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3190 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0194; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-263-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Embraer Model EMB-135BJ 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

(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

(425)227-1405; 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-2008-0194; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-263-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 Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-08-01, effective September 27, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Fuel system reassessment, performed according to RBHA-E88/SFAR-88 (Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologacao Aeronautica 88/Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88), requires the inclusion of new maintenance tasks in the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) and in the Fuel System Limitations (FSL), necessary to preclude ignition sources in the fuel system. * * * The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Sections A2.5.2, Fuel System Limitation Items, and A2.4, Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL), of Appendix 2 of the Embraer Legacy BJ Maintenance Planning Guide

(MPG)MPG-1483, Revision 5, dated March 22, 2007. 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. Explanation of Compliance Time In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, the FAA has already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this proposed AD, we are using this same compliance date in this proposed 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 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 37 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,960, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0194; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-263-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by March 24, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Embraer Model EMB-135BJ 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

(g)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association

(ATA)of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: Fuel system reassessment, performed according to RBHA-E88/SFAR-88 (Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologacao Aeronautica 88/Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88), requires the inclusion of new maintenance tasks in the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL) and in the Fuel System Limitations (FSL), necessary to preclude ignition sources in the fuel system. * * * The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section

(ALS)of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

(ICA)to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Actions and Compliance

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

(1)The term “MPG,” as used in this AD, means the Embraer Legacy BJ Maintenance Planning Guide

(MPG)MPG-1483, Revision 5, dated March 22, 2007.

(2)Before December 16, 2008, revise the ALS of the ICA to incorporate Section A2.5.2, Fuel System Limitation Items, of Appendix 2 of the MPG. For all tasks identified in Section A2.5.2 of Appendix 2 of the MPG, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD; and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in Section A2.5.2 of Appendix 2 of the MPG, except as provided by paragraphs (f)(4) and

(g)of this AD.

(i)The effective date of this AD.

(ii)The date of issuance of the original Brazilian standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Brazilian export certificate of airworthiness.

(4)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Appendix 2 of the MPG that is approved by the Manager, ANM-116, FAA, or ANAC (or its delegated agent); or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC)in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph

(g)of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI specifies a compliance date of “Before December 31, 2008” for doing the ALI revisions. We have already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for coordinated implementation of these regulations and this AD, we are using this same compliance date in this AD. We also included a compliance time of “within 90 days after the effective date of this AD” in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, rather than “within 180 days after the effective date of this AD,” as specified by the MCAI. We have coordinated these compliance times with ANAC. Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(425)227-1405; 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.

(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 Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-08-01, effective September 27, 2007; and Sections A2.5.2, Fuel System Limitation Items, and A2.4, Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL), of Appendix 2 of the MPG; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 13, 2008. Stephen P. Boyd, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3191 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0078; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-40-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan Engines 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: High pressure

(HP)turbine discs recently inspected in accordance with the Engine Manual have exhibited cracks in the disc rim. The discs have failed to meet the inspection acceptance criteria and have been returned to Rolls-Royce for engineering investigation. This investigation has concluded that the cracks have resulted from scores within the cooling air holes in the disc rim that could have been introduced during new part manufacture or during overhaul of the disc. The engineering investigation has concluded that if this cracking was undetected then it could result in uncontained disc failure and a potential unsafe condition for the aircraft. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained disc failure, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. 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 the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *ian.dargin@faa.gov* ; telephone

(781)238-7178, fax

(781)238-7199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0078; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-40-AD” in the subject line 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 AD 2006-0180, dated June 26, 2006, for RB211-524 series engines, AD 2006-0181, dated June 26, 2006, for RB211-22B engines, and AD 2006-0182, dated June 28, 2006, for RB211-535 series engines, to correct the same unsafe condition for the specified products. The EASA ADs state: HPT discs recently inspected in accordance with the Engine Manual have exhibited cracks in the disc rim. The discs have failed to meet the inspection acceptance criteria and have been returned to Rolls-Royce for engineering investigation. This investigation has concluded that the cracks have resulted from scores within the cooling air holes in the disc rim that could have been introduced during new part manufacture or during overhaul of the disc. The engineering investigation has concluded that if this cracking was undetected then it could result in uncontained disc failure and a potential unsafe condition for the aircraft. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI ADs in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Rolls-Royce plc has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE969, dated May 9, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI ADs. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD These products have been approved by the United Kingdom (UK), and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the UK, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI ADs, 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. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive eddy current inspections of HP turbine discs. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 506 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $161,920. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We 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 airworthiness directive (AD): **Rolls-Royce plc:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0078; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-40-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by March 24, 2008. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc

(RR)models RB211-535E4 series, RB211-535E4-B series, RB211-535E4-C series, RB211-535C series, RB211-524 series, and RB211-22B series turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 747, 757, and 767, Lockheed L-1011, and Tupulev Tu204 airplanes. Reason

(d)European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2006-0180, dated June 26, 2006, AD 2006-0181, dated June 26, 2006, and AD 2006-0182, dated June 28, 2006, state: High pressure

(e)Unless already done, perform an initial eddy current inspection

(ECI)of the HP turbine disc air cooling holes. Information on ECI of HP turbine disc cooling holes can be found in RR Engine Overhaul Process Manual No. TSD594-J, Overhaul Process 223, dated May 1, 2001. Initial Inspection for RB211-22B Series Turbofan Engines

(f)For RB211-22B series turbofan engines:

(1)If an installed HP turbine disc has more than 9,500 cycles-since-new

(CSN)on the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP turbine disc by whichever is the soonest of the following conditions:

(i)Within 500 cycles from the effective date of this AD; or

(ii)At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is removed from the combustor outer casing.

(2)If an installed HP turbine disc has 9,500 or fewer CSN on the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP turbine disc by whichever is the soonest of the following conditions:

(i)Before reaching 10,000 CSN; or

(ii)At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is removed from the combustor outer casing and the HP turbine disc has more than 2,750 CSN.

(3)For HP turbine rotors at shop visit and already removed from the combustor outer casing on the effective date of this AD, ECI the HP turbine disc before reinstalling the HP turbine rotor in the combustor outer casing. Initial Inspection of RB211-524 Series Turbofan Engines

(g)For RB211-524 series turbofan engines, ECI the HP turbine disc at the soonest of the following after the effective date of the AD:

(1)At the next shop visit where the HP turbine blades are removed from the HP turbine disc and when the HP turbine disc has more than 2,750 CSN.

(2)For HP turbine rotors at shop visit and the HP turbine blades are removed from the HP turbine disc and the HP turbine disc life is more than 2,750 CSN, ECI the turbine disc before reinstalling the HP turbine blades. Initial Inspection of RB211-535C, -535E4, -535E4-B, and -535E4-C Series Turbofan Engines

(h)For RB211-535C, -535E4, -535E4-B, and -535E4-C series turbofan engines:

(1)If an installed HP turbine disc has 17,500 or fewer CSN on the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP turbine disc by whichever is the soonest of the following conditions:

(i)Before reaching 18,000 CSN; or

(ii)At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is removed from the combustor outer casing, and the HP turbine disc has 5,000 or more CSN.

(iii)For HP turbine rotors at shop visit on the effective date of this AD that are removed from the combustor outer casing, and that have HP turbine discs with 5,000 or more CSN, ECI the HP turbine disc before reinstalling the HP turbine rotor in the combustor outer casing.

(2)If an installed HP turbine disc has more than 17,500 CSN on the effective date of this AD, then ECI the HP turbine disc by whichever is the soonest of the following conditions:

(i)Within 500 cycles from the effective date of this AD; or

(ii)At the next shop visit where the HP turbine rotor is removed from the combustor outer casing.

(iii)For HP turbine rotors at shop visit on the effective date of this AD that are removed from the combustor outer casing, ECI the HP turbine disc before reinstalling the HP turbine rotor in the combustor outer casing. HP Turbine Disc Permanent Etching

(i)On successful completion of the initial inspection only, permanently etch NMSB 72-AE969 onto the HP turbine disc, adjacent to the part number. Repetitive ECI Inspections

(j)Thereafter, perform repetitive ECIs at every shop visit where the HP turbine blades are removed from the HP turbine disc. Information on ECI of HP turbine disc air cooling holes can be found in RR Engine Overhaul Process Manual No. TSD594-J, Overhaul Process 223, dated May 1, 2001.

(k)Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Previous Credit

(l)Initial inspections done before the effective date of this AD on HP turbine discs with a disc life above the minimum threshold (5,000 CSN for the RB211-535 engines and 2,750 CSN for both the RB211-524 and the RB211-22B engines) at the time of inspection, per paragraph 1.C.(2) of RR Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE969, comply with the initial inspection requirements specified in this AD. Related Information

(m)Refer to EASA AD 2006-0180, dated June 26, 2006, AD 2006-0181, dated June 26, 2006, and AD 2006-0182, dated June 28, 2006, for related information.

(n)Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: *ian.dargin@faa.gov* ; telephone 781 238-7178; fax 781 238-7199, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 13, 2008. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3192 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0022; Airspace Docket 07-AEA-07] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Waynesburg, PA AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at Waynesburg, PA, to accommodate a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)that has been developed for Green County Airport. As a result, controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level

(AGL)needs to be expanded to contain the SIAP and other Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR)operations at Green County Airport. The operating status of the airport will change from Visual Flight Rules

(VFR)to include IFR operations concurrent with the publication of the SIAP. Additional controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at Green County, Waynesburg, PA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527. You must identify the docket number FAA-2007-0022; Airspace Docket 07-AEA-07, 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 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, view 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. Persons 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-2007-0022; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-07.” 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 modify Class E airspace at Waynesburg, PA. A new Area Navigation

(RNAV)Global Position System

(GPS)Runway

(RWY)09 Standard Instrument Approach Procedure

(SIAP)has been developed at the Green County Airport. Controlled airspace, known as Class E5 airspace, extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth, is required for instrument flight rule operations and to encompass all SIAPs to the extent possible. Although Class E airspace exists at the airport, it is of insufficient size and needs to be increased from a 6-mile radius to an 8.3-mile radius to incorporate the SIAP. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation 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 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 the 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 modifies Class E Airspace at Waynesburg, PA. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. AEA PA E5 Waynesburg, PA [Amended] Green County Airport, PA (Lat. 39°54′00″ N., long. 80°07′59″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within an 8.3-mile radius of Green County Airport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 31, 2008. Barry A. Knight, Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center. [FR Doc. 08-722 Filed 2-20-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code