Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-03-04 · Farm Service Agency, USDA · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

41,917 words·~191 min read·/register/2008/03/04/08-931·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency 7 CFR Part 786 RIN 0560-AH74 Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program III AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a new program, the Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program III, as authorized by the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The program will provide $16 million in assistance for producers in counties designated as a major disaster or emergency area by the President, or those declared a natural disaster area by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Counties declared disasters by the President may be eligible, even though agricultural loss was not covered by the declaration, if there has been a Farm Service Agency Administrator's Physical Loss Notice covering such losses. The natural disaster declarations by the Secretary or the President must have been issued between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, that is, after January 1, 2005, and before December 31, 2007. Counties contiguous to such counties will also be eligible.
This program is designed to provide financial assistance to producers who suffered dairy production losses due to natural disasters in the eligible counties. DATES: This rule is effective on March 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Cooke, *telephone:*
(202)720-1919; *e-mail:* *Danielle.Cooke@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This rule establishes regulations based on the proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2007 (72 FR 65889-65897). The 30-day comment period for the proposed rule closed on December 26, 2007; 16 comments were submitted. The issues raised in the comments and the resulting changes to the rule are discussed later in this final rule. The proposed rule provided that the DDAP-III program would be based on disaster related dairy production losses suffered during the period of January 2, 2005, and February 27, 2007, in counties declared or designated a natural disaster by the President or Secretary of Agriculture. For timely Presidential declarations that do not cover agricultural loss, the subject counties may still be covered if the county was the subject of a Farm Service Agency
(FSA)Administrator's Loss Notice. Counties contiguous to such declared counties are also eligible. The program will end at the conclusion of the application period and disbursement of allotted funds. The DDAP-III program will operate under regulations codified in 7 CFR part 786. The proposed rule specified that dairy producers would disclose the number of cows in the operation's dairy herd for each month of the calendar year in which a disaster declaration was issued to determine the average number of cows in the dairy herd for the operation per applicable year and calculate the qualifying production loss for the operation. The proposed rule also provided that spoiled or dumped milk would be counted as production for the relevant claim period. In addition, the proposed rule provided that qualifying production losses would be calculated from a set base amount determined from data obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The proposed rule provided that if the limited program funds were not sufficient to pay all claims for lost production, then priority would be given in making payments to those persons whose losses for each applicable disaster year were greater than 20 percent. The proposed rule also specified that the prices at which payments would be made would be amounts set out in the rule which were derived from a series of reported “mailbox” prices. Comments and Changes to the Final Rule During the 30-day comment period the Agency received public comments from a dairy cooperative, five associations, a Farm Bureau, and eight private citizens. In general, the comments supported the proposed rule, however, each of the comments raised one or more issues addressing a specific aspect of implementing DDAP-III and several comments raised the same issues. As explained below, minor changes to the regulations based on the comments will slightly modify the provisions specified in the proposed rule. Two comments opposed the program, one indicated that assistance should only be provided to small dairy operations and the other objected to anyone other than the President making disaster declarations. One of those comments also indicated that assistance provided by this program is a misuse of taxpayer dollars and that it was misleading for Congress to insert a statute for agriculture in a non-related military spending bill. No changes have been made in the rule based on these comments. The Agency is charged with implementing the statutory provisions and has done so in this final rule. One comment requested clarification regarding spoiled or dumped milk being counted as production during the relevant claim period. Specifically, to ensure that milk production that spoiled or was dumped for a disaster related reason would be included in the qualifying production losses for the dairy operation. The provision in the rule that requires spoiled or dumped milk being counted as production is intended to account for milk that spoiled or was dumped due to non-disaster related reasons and must be counted as production. The Agency clarified this point in the rule by revising section 786.106, paragraphs
(e)and (h), which were proposed as paragraphs
(c)and (f), respectively. Comments were received on the method of payment at two levels in the event of inadequate funds for all eligible losses and the appropriate loss level percentage. Two respondents opposed the use of the 20 percent threshold because its use over a full calendar year for an initial round of disaster benefits may not recognize the economic reality of significantly higher input costs on dairy farms and the devastating effect of short term disasters. With funding limitations, the proposed threshold percentage provides fair compensation and is consistent with other disaster programs administered by the Agency. Therefore, no change was made in response to these comments. One comment suggested making dairy operations outside of eligible disaster counties eligible when milk was dumped as a result of the market outlet being located in a disaster affected county. The statutory provisions did not provide for counties outside of disaster declared counties to be eligible. Therefore, no change was made in response to this comment. One comment requested clarification of the phrase “legal resident alien” and believed that holders of E12 Visas should be permitted to participate in the program. Provisions for foreign persons used for FSA programs are provided in 7 CFR part 1400, subpart F, and apply to this program. A definition for a lawful alien is also provided in 1400.3. Therefore, no change was made in response to this comment. Most comments received disagreed with how the base production for the dairy operation was determined. Twelve respondents opposed the use of NASS State averages to determine base production because of the great disparity between operations with minor breeds or poor herd management practices that produce significantly less than the NASS average and those dairy operations with higher inputs that are more efficient and produce well above the NASS average. Additionally, one comment received opposed the use of the calendar year of the disaster to determine base production and believed a period of weeks, months or the year prior to the disaster would be more representative of base period production for comparison. Further, the comment disagreed with the use of cow averages during the year of the disaster to determine base production because cow losses would factor into a decreased base production for the dairy operation. These comments supported an alternative method of determining base production for the dairy operation that was not based on the year of the disaster and did not include the use of NASS State averages based on cow averages during the applicable disaster year. After careful consideration of the recommendations proposed in the comments, the Agency will change the determination of base annual production for the dairy operation to use the average of the total commercially marketed production during both calendar years 2003 and 2004 prior to the eligible period, divided by the average number of cows in the dairy herd during both calendar years 2003 and 2004 prior to the eligible period, to establish the average annual production per cow. To calculate the base annual production for the dairy operation, the average annual production per cow determined from the base year information obtained from the producer, will be multiplied by the average number of cows (not including cow losses resulting from the disaster occurrence) in the dairy herd during the applicable year of the disaster. Dairy operations without the required information from the 2003 and 2004 base years will use an alternative method to estimate the average annual production per cow that will be determined by the FSA Administrator. For example, for new dairies not in operation during 2003 and 2004, FSA may obtain information from three similar farms to estimate the base annual production for the operation. These changes were made throughout the regulations with revised definitions, sections 786.104 through 786.106. Miscellaneous Changes Payment rates for the four States of Colorado, Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Wyoming were inadvertently left out of the table in section 786.107 in the proposed rule and are incorporated in this final rule. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161), extended the eligible period for the program from February 27, 2007 to December 30, 2007. Changes are incorporated throughout to modify the date to reflect the extension. Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A cost-benefit assessment of this rule was completed and is available from the contact information above. Summary of Economic Impacts Program payments will provide eligible producers funds to help pay operating expenses and meet other financial obligations. Program payments are expected to total and increase both Federal outlays and aggregate farm revenue by $16 million. This assistance will help dairy producers affected by natural disasters to recover some lost income and additional repair expenses to aid in continuing their agricultural production businesses. The States with the highest percentages of dairies expected to make claims are: Idaho (33 percent), California (16 percent), New Mexico (13 percent), Indiana and Michigan (7-8 percent), Washington and Arizona (5 percent), and Wisconsin (3 percent). Expected claims totaled 3.1 million hundred weight (cwt). If total eligible losses exceed available funding, losses above 20 percent will be paid at the maximum payment rates. The average payment rate for losses below 20 percent will be determined by dividing remaining funding by the total milk pounds below 20 percent eligible for payment. The resulting payment rate is projected to be $5.15 per cwt, substantially below average mailbox prices. 1 The average mailbox price for all Federal Orders in the United States was $12.87 in 2006 and $11.28 in California, which is outside the Federal Order system. The lowest mailbox price in the Federal Order system in 2006 was $11.13 in New Mexico. 1 The mailbox price is the net price producers receive for their milk, after all marketing costs, discounts, premiums are accounted for. The Agricultural Marketing Service collects and publishes monthly mailbox prices. Producers who can demonstrate a loss exceeding 20 percent of their production will receive compensation equal to the average mailbox price prevailing in their region during the period of the disaster. To the extent that payments equal to the mailbox price are made to some producers, the otherwise-average payment rate of $5.15 will be reduced. In theory, it is possible that enough producers could claim a 20-percent-or-greater loss and receive payments equal to the mailbox price, that payments to the remaining producers with lower losses could be considerably less than $5.15. However, FSA does not have sufficient data to estimate how many producers might have losses exceeding 20 percent of their production, or how much milk such losses might represent. Payments are expected to increase producer income and defray repair and cattle replacement costs. Outlays will be monitored to ensure that they do not exceed the actual loss. The $16 million is a small share of federal farm assistance. For example, Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)made $15.3 billion in direct cash payments to farmers and ranchers in fiscal 2005, excluding all payments made for disasters, with the largest category of payments being $8 billion paid under the Direct and Counter Cyclical Program. CCC direct cash payments for fiscal 2005 through estimated fiscal 2007 total $43.7 billion, averaging $14.6 billion, annually. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because FSA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject of this rule. Environmental Assessment FSA has determined that this rule does not constitute a major State or Federal action that would significantly affect the human or natural environment consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act 40 CFR part 1502.4, Major Federal actions requiring the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, and 7 CFR part 799: Environmental Quality and Related Environmental Concerns—Compliance with NEPA implementing the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. Therefore no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement will be prepared. Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12998. This rule preempts State laws to the extent such laws are inconsistent with it. This rule is not retroactive. Before judicial action may be brought concerning this rule, all administrative remedies set forth at 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983). Unfunded Mandates Although we published a proposed rule, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)does not apply to this rule because FSA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject of this rule. Further, this rule contains no unfunded mandates as defined in sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The Information Collection Packages for the amendments to 7 CFR 786 contained in this final rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for approval as a revision to OMB Control Number 0560- 0252. A proposed rule containing an estimate of the burden impact of the rule was published in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2007 (72 FR 65889-65897) with estimates of the information collection burden required to implement this program and a request for comments on those requirements as required by 5 CFR section 1320.8(d)(1). No comments concerning the burden estimate were received. E-Government Act Compliance FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. The forms, regulations, and other information collection activities required to be utilized by a person subject to this rule are available at *http://www.fsa.usda.gov.* Applications may be submitted at the FSA county offices. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 786 Dairy products, Disaster assistance, Fraud, Penalties, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 786 is added to read as follows: PART 786—DAIRY DISASTER ASSISTANCE PAYMENT PROGRAM (DDAP-III) Sec. 786.100 Applicability. 786.101 Administration. 786.102 Definitions. 786.103 Time and method of application. 786.104 Eligibility. 786.105 Proof of production. 786.106 Determination of losses incurred. 786.107 Rate of payment and limitations on funding. 786.108 Availability of funds. 786.109 Appeals. 786.110 Misrepresentation, scheme, or device. 786.111 Death, incompetence, or disappearance. 786.112 Maintaining records. 786.113 Refunds; joint and several liability. 786.114 Miscellaneous provisions. 786.115 Termination of program. Authority: Sec. 9007, Pub. L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112; and Sec. 743, Pub. L. 110-161. PART 786—DAIRY DISASTER ASSISTANCE PAYMENT PROGRAM III (DDAP-III) § 786.100 Applicability.
(a)Subject to the availability of funds, this part specifies the terms and conditions applicable to the Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment Program (DDAP-III) authorized by section 9007 of Public Law 110-28 (extended by Pub. L. 110-161). Benefits are available to eligible United States producers who have suffered dairy production losses in eligible counties as a result of a natural disaster declared during the period between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007, (that is, after January 1, 2005, and before December 31, 2007).
(b)To be eligible for this program, a producer must have been a milk producer anytime during the period of January 2, 2005, through December 30, 2007, in a county declared a natural disaster by the Secretary of Agriculture, declared a major disaster or emergency designated by the President of the United States. For a county for which there was a timely Presidential declaration, but the declaration did not cover the loss, the county may still be eligible if the county is one for which an appropriate determination of a Farm Service Agency
(FSA)Administrator's Physical Loss Notice applies. Counties contiguous to a county that is directly eligible by way of a natural disaster declaration are also eligible. Only losses occurring in eligible counties are eligible for payment in this program.
(c)Subject to the availability of funds, FSA will provide benefits to eligible dairy producers. Additional terms and conditions may be specified in the payment application that must be completed and submitted by producers to receive a disaster assistance payment for dairy production losses.
(d)To be eligible for payments, producers must meet the provisions of, and their losses must meet the conditions of, this part and any other conditions imposed by FSA. § 786.101 Administration.
(a)DDAP-III will be administered under the general supervision of the Administrator, FSA, or a designee, and be carried out in the field by FSA State and county committees (State and county committees) and FSA employees.
(b)State and county committees, and representatives and employees thereof, do not have the authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of the regulations of this part.
(c)The State committee will take any action required by the regulations of this part that has not been taken by the county committee. The State committee will also:
(1)Correct, or require the county committee to correct, any action taken by such county committee that is not in accordance with the regulations of this part; and
(2)Require a county committee to withhold taking any action that is not in accordance with the regulations of this part.
(d)No provision of delegation in this part to a State or county committee will preclude the Administrator, FSA, or a designee, from determining any question arising under the program or from reversing or modifying any determination made by the State or county committee.
(e)The Deputy Administrator, Farm Programs, FSA, may authorize State and county committees to waive or modify deadlines in cases where lateness or failure to meet such requirements do not adversely affect the operation of the DDAP-III and does not violate statutory limitations of the program.
(f)Data furnished by the applicants is used to determine eligibility for program benefits. Although participation in DDAP-III is voluntary, program benefits will not be provided unless the producer furnishes all requested data. § 786.102 Definitions. The definitions in 7 CFR part 718 apply to this part except to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of this part. In addition, for the purpose of this part, the following definitions apply. *Administrator* means the FSA Administrator, or a designee. *Application* means DDAP-III application. *Application period* means the time period established by the Deputy Administrator for producers to apply for program benefits. *Base annual production* means the pounds of production determined by multiplying the average annual production per cow calculated from base period information times the average number of cows in the dairy herd during each applicable disaster year. *County committee* means the FSA county committee. *County office* means the FSA office responsible for administering FSA programs for farms located in a specific area in a State. *Dairy operation* means any person or group of persons who, as a single unit, as determined by FSA, produces and markets milk commercially from cows and whose production facilities are located in the United States. *Department or USDA* means the United States Department of Agriculture. *Deputy Administrator* means the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs (DAFP), FSA, or a designee. *Disaster claim period* means the calendar year(s) applicable to the disaster declaration during the eligible period in which the production losses occurred. *Disaster county* means a county included in the geographic area covered by a natural disaster declaration, and any county contiguous to a county that qualifies by a natural disaster declaration. *Farm Service Agency or FSA* means the Farm Service Agency of the Department. *Hundredweight or cwt.* means 100 pounds. *Milk handler or cooperative* means the marketing agency to, or through, which the producer commercially markets whole milk. *Milk marketings* means a marketing of milk for which there is a verifiable sale or delivery record of milk marketed for commercial use. *Natural disaster declaration* means a natural disaster declaration issued by the Secretary of Agriculture after January 1, 2005, but before December 31, 2007, under section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)), a major disaster or emergency designation by the President of the United States in that period under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or a determination of a Farm Service Agency Administrator's Physical Loss Notice for a county covered in an otherwise eligible Presidential declaration. *Payment pounds* means the pounds of milk production from a dairy operation for which the dairy producer is eligible to be paid under this part. *Producer* means any individual, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, estate, trust association, cooperative, or other business enterprise or other legal entity who is, or whose members are, a citizen of, or a legal resident alien in, the United States, and who directly or indirectly, as determined by the Secretary, have a share entitlement or ownership interest in a commercial dairy's milk production and who share in the risk of producing milk, and make contributions (including land, labor, management, equipment, or capital) to the dairy farming operation of the individual or entity. *Reliable production evidence* means records provided by the producer subject to a determination of acceptability by the county committee that are used to substantiate the amount of production reported when verifiable records are not available; the records may include copies of receipts, ledgers of income, income statements of deposit slips, register tapes, and records to verify production costs, contemporaneous measurements, and contemporaneous diaries. *Verifiable production records* means evidence that is used to substantiate the amount of production marketed, including any dumped production, and that can be verified by FSA through an independent source. § 786.103 Time and method of application.
(a)Dairy producers may obtain an application, in person, by mail, by telephone, or by facsimile from any FSA county office. In addition, applicants may download a copy of the application at *http://www.sc.egov.usda.gov.*
(b)A request for benefits under this part must be submitted on a completed DDAP-III application. Applications and any other supporting documentation must be submitted to the FSA county office serving the county where the dairy operation is located, but, in any case, must be received by the FSA county office by the close of business on the date established by the Deputy Administrator. Applications not received by the close of business on such date will be disapproved as not having been timely filed and the dairy producer will not be eligible for benefits under this program.
(c)All persons who share in the milk production of the dairy operation and risk of the dairy operation's total production must certify to the information on the application before the application will be considered complete.
(d)Each dairy producer requesting benefits under this part must certify to the accuracy and truthfulness of the information provided in their application and any supporting documentation. Any information entered on the application will be considered information from the applicant regardless of who entered the information on the application. All information provided is subject to verification by FSA. Refusal to allow FSA or any other agency of the Department of Agriculture to verify any information provided may result in a denial of eligibility. Furnishing the information is voluntary; however, without it program benefits will not be approved. Providing a false certification to the Government may be punishable by imprisonment, fines, and other penalties or sanctions. § 786.104 Eligibility.
(a)Producers in the United States will be eligible to receive dairy disaster benefits under this part only if they have suffered dairy production losses, previously uncompensated by disaster payments including any previous dairy disaster payment program, during the claim period applicable to a natural disaster declaration in a disaster county. To be eligible to receive payments under this part, producers in a dairy operation must:
(1)Have produced and commercially marketed milk in the United States and commercially marketed the milk produced anytime during the period of January 2, 2005 through December 30, 2007;
(2)Be a producer on a dairy farm operation physically located in an eligible county where dairy production losses were incurred as a result of a disaster for which an applicable natural disaster declaration was issued between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007, and limit their claims to losses that occurred in those counties, specific to conditions resulting from the declared disaster as described in the natural disaster declaration;
(3)Provide adequate proof, to the satisfaction of the FSA county committee, of the average number of cows in the dairy herd and annual milk production commercially marketed by all persons in the eligible dairy operation during the years of the base period (2003 and 2004 calendar years) and applicable disaster year that corresponds with the issuance date of the applicable natural disaster declaration, or other period as determined by FSA, to determine the total pounds of eligible losses that will be used for payment; and
(4)Apply for payments during the application period established by the Deputy Administrator.
(b)Payments may be made for losses suffered by an otherwise eligible producer who is now deceased or is a dissolved entity if a representative who currently has authority to enter into a contract for the producer or the producer's estate signs the application for payment. Proof of authority to sign for the deceased producer's estate or a dissolved entity must be provided. If a producer is now a dissolved general partnership or joint venture, all members of the general partnership or joint venture at the time of dissolution or their duly-authorized representatives must sign the application for payment.
(c)Producers associated with a dairy operation must submit a timely application and satisfy the terms and conditions of this part, instructions issued by FSA, and instructions contained in the application to be eligible for benefits under this part.
(d)As a condition to receive benefits under this part, a producer must have been in compliance with the Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation provisions of 7 CFR part 12 for the calendar year applicable to the natural disaster declaration and loss claim period, and must not otherwise be barred from receiving benefits under 7 CFR part 12 or any other law or regulation.
(e)Payments are limited to losses in eligible counties, in eligible disaster years.
(f)All payments under this part are subject to the availability of funds.
(g)Eligible losses are determined from the applicable base annual production, as defined in § 786.102, that corresponds to the natural disaster declaration and must have occurred during that same period as follows:
(1)For disaster declarations for disasters during a calendar year (2005, 2006, or 2007), the disaster claim period is the full calendar year and
(2)For disaster declarations issued during one calendar year that ends in another calendar year, the producer will be eligible for both disaster years.
(h)Deductions in eligibility will be made for any disaster payments previously received for the loss including any made under a previous dairy disaster assistance payment program for 2005. § 786.105 Proof of production.
(a)Evidence of production is required to establish the commercial marketing and production history of the dairy operation so that dairy production losses can be computed in accordance with § 786.106.
(b)A dairy producer must, based on the instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator, provide adequate proof of the dairy operation's commercial production, including any dairy herd inventory records available for the operation, for the years of the base period (2003 and 2004 calendar years) and disaster claim period that corresponds with the issuance date of the applicable natural disaster declaration.
(1)A producer must certify and provide such proof as requested that losses for which compensation is claimed were related to the disaster declaration issued and occurred in an eligible county during the eligible claim period.
(2)A producer must certify to the average number of cows in the dairy herd during the base period and applicable disaster claim period when there is insufficient documentation available for verification.
(3)Additional supporting documentation may be requested by FSA as necessary to verify production losses to the satisfaction of FSA.
(c)Adequate proof of production history of the dairy operation under paragraph
(b)of this section must be based on milk marketing statements obtained from the dairy operation's milk handler or marketing cooperative. Supporting documents may include, but are not limited to: Tank records, milk handler records, daily milk marketings, copies of any payments received from other sources for production losses, or any other documents available to confirm or adjust the production history losses incurred by the dairy operation. All information provided is subject to verification, spot check, and audit by FSA.
(d)As specified in § 786.106, loss calculations will be based on comparing the expected base annual production consistent with this part and the actual production during the applicable disaster claim year. Such calculations are subject to adjustments as may be appropriate such as a correction for losses not due to the disaster. If adequate proof of normally marketed production and any other production for relevant periods is not presented to the satisfaction of FSA, the request for benefits will be rejected. Special adjustments for new producers may be made as determined necessary by the Administrator. § 786.106 Determination of losses incurred.
(a)Eligible payable losses are calculated on a dairy operation by dairy operation basis and are limited to those occurring during the applicable disaster claim period, as provided by § 786.104(g), that corresponds with the applicable natural disaster declaration. Specifically, dairy production losses incurred by producers under this part are determined on the established history of the dairy operation's average number of cows in the dairy herd and actual commercial production marketed during the base period and applicable disaster claim period that corresponds with the applicable natural disaster declaration, as provided by the dairy operation consistent with § 786.105. Except as otherwise provided in this part, the base annual production, as defined in § 786.102 and established in § 786.104(g) is determined for each applicable disaster year based on the average annual production per cow determined according to the following:
(1)The average of annual marketed production during the base period calendar years of 2003 and 2004, divided by;
(2)The average number of cows in the dairy operation's herd during the base period calendar years of 2003 and 2004.
(b)If relevant information to calculate the average annual production per cow for one or both of the base period calendar years of 2003 and 2004, is not available, an alternative method of determining the average annual production per cow may be established by the FSA Administrator. For example, for new dairies not in operation during 2003 and 2004, information from three similar farms may be obtained by FSA to estimate base annual production.
(c)The average annual production per cow, as determined according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, is multiplied by the average number of cows in the dairy operation's herd during the applicable disaster year (excluding cow losses resulting from the disaster occurrence), to determine base annual production for the dairy operation for each applicable disaster claim period year.
(d)The eligible dairy production losses for a dairy operation for each of the authorized disaster claim period years will be:
(1)The relevant period's base annual production for the dairy operation calculated under paragraph
(c)of this section less,
(2)For each such disaster claim period for each dairy operation the actual commercially-marketed production relevant to that period.
(e)Spoiled or dumped milk, disposed of for reasons unrelated to the disaster occurrence, must be counted as production for the relevant disaster claim period. Actual production losses may be adjusted to the extent the reduction in production is not certified by the producer to be the result of the disaster identified in the natural disaster declaration or is determined by FSA not to be related to the natural disaster identified in the natural disaster declaration. FSA county committees will determine production losses that are not caused by the disaster associated with the natural disaster declaration. The calculated production loss determined in § 786.106(d) will be adjusted to account for pounds of production losses determined by the FSA county committee to not have been associated with the declared natural disaster for an eligible disaster county. The FSA county committee may convert cow numbers to actual pounds of production used in the adjustment, by multiplying the average annual production per cow determined from base period information, by the applicable number of cows determined to be ineligible to generate claims for benefits. Other appropriate adjustments will be made on such basis as the Deputy Administrator finds to be consistent with the objectives of the program.
(f)Actual production, as adjusted, that exceeds the base annual production will mean that the dairy operation incurred no eligible production losses for the corresponding claim period as a result of the natural disaster.
(g)Eligible production losses as otherwise determined under paragraphs
(a)through
(f)of this section for each authorized year of the program are added together to determine total eligible losses incurred by the dairy operation under DDAP-III subject to all other eligibility requirements as may be included in this part or elsewhere, including the deduction for previous payments including those made under a previous DDAP program.
(h)Payment on eligible dairy operation losses will be calculated using whole pounds of milk. No double counting is permitted, and only one payment will be made for each pound of milk calculated as an eligible loss after the distribution of the dairy operation's eligible production loss among the producers of the dairy operation according to § 786.107(b). Payments under this part will not be affected by any payments for dumped or spoiled milk that the dairy operation may have received from its milk handler, marketing cooperative, or any other private party; however, produced milk that was dumped or spoiled for reasons unrelated to the disaster occurrence will still count as production. § 786.107 Rate of payment and limitations on funding.
(a)Subject to the availability of funds, the payment rate for eligible production losses determined according to § 786.106 is, depending on the State, the annual average Mailbox milk price for the Marketing Order, applicable to the State where the eligible disaster county is located, as reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service during the relevant period. States not regulated under a Marketing Order will be assigned a payment rate based on contiguous or nearby State's Mailbox milk price. Maximum per pound payment rates for eligible losses for dairy operations located in specific states during the relevant period are as follows: State Mailbox price 2005 Mailbox price 2006 Mailbox price 2007 * Alabama 0.1596 0.1443 Alaska 0.2040 0.2010 Arizona 0.1388 0.1128 Arkansas 0.1596 0.1443 California 0.1388 0.1128 Colorado 0.1403 0.1214 Connecticut 0.1539 0.1344 Delaware 0.1539 0.1344 Florida 0.1758 0.1603 Georgia 0.1596 0.1443 Hawaii 0.2700 0.2600 Idaho 0.1402 0.1215 Illinois 0.1514 0.1283 Indiana 0.1503 0.1294 Iowa 0.1507 0.1285 Kansas 0.1403 0.1214 Kentucky 0.1527 0.1349 Louisiana 0.1596 0.1443 Maine 0.1539 0.1344 Maryland 0.1539 0.1344 Massachusetts 0.1539 0.1344 Michigan 0.1478 0.1264 Minnesota 0.1512 0.1277 Mississippi 0.1596 0.1443 Missouri (Northern) 0.1403 0.1214 Missouri (Southern) 0.1467 0.1254 Montana 0.1512 0.1277 Nebraska 0.1403 0.1214 Nevada 0.1388 0.1128 New Hampshire 0.1539 0.1344 New Jersey 0.1539 0.1344 New Mexico 0.1323 0.1108 New York 0.1539 0.1303 North Carolina 0.1527 0.1349 North Dakota 0.1512 0.1277 Ohio 0.1506 0.1302 Oklahoma 0.1596 0.1443 Oregon 0.1402 0.1215 Pennsylvania (Eastern) 0.1539 0.1340 Pennsylvania (Western) 0.1539 0.1302 Puerto Rico 0.2550 0.2570 Rhode Island 0.1539 0.1344 South Carolina 0.1527 0.1349 South Dakota 0.1512 0.1277 Tennessee 0.1527 0.1349 Texas 0.1405 0.1194 Vermont 0.1539 0.1344 Virginia 0.1527 0.1349 Washington 0.1402 0.1215 West Virginia 0.1506 0.1302 Wisconsin 0.1535 0.1305 Wyoming 0.1403 0.1214 Note: Calculations are rounded to 7 decimal places. * Payment rates for 2007 are currently unavailable, but will be based on the annual average Mailbox milk price for the Marketing Order, applicable to the State where the eligible disaster county is located, as reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service, consistent with payment rates provided for 2005 and 2006.
(b)Subject to the availability of funds, each eligible dairy operation's payment is calculated by multiplying the applicable payment rate under paragraph
(a)of this section by the operation's total eligible losses as adjusted pursuant to this part. Where there are multiple producers in the dairy operation, individual producers' payments are disbursed according to each producer's share of the dairy operation's production as specified in the application.
(c)If the total value of losses claimed nationwide under paragraph
(b)of this section exceeds the $16 million available for the DDAP-III, less any reserve that may be created under paragraph
(e)of this section, total eligible losses of individual dairy operations that, as calculated as an overall percentage for each full disaster claim period applicable to the disaster declaration, are greater than 20 percent of the total base annual production will be paid at the maximum rate under paragraph
(a)of this section to the extent available funding allows. A loss of over 20 percent in only one or two months during the applicable disaster claim period does not of itself qualify for the maximum per-pound payment. Rather, the priority level must be reached as an average over the whole disaster claim period for the relevant calendar year. Total eligible losses for a producer, as calculated under § 786.106, of less than or equal to 20 percent during the eligible claim period will then be paid at a rate, not to exceed the rate allowed in paragraph
(a)of this section, determined by dividing the eligible losses of less than 20 percent by the funds remaining after making payments for all eligible losses above the 20-percent threshold.
(d)In no event will the payment exceed the value determined by multiplying the producer's total eligible loss times the average price received for commercial milk production in the producer's area as defined in paragraph
(a)of this section.
(e)No participant will receive disaster benefits under this part that in combination with the value of production not lost would result in an amount that exceeds 95 percent of the value of the expected production for the relevant period as estimated by the Secretary. Unless otherwise program funds would not be fully expended, the sum of the value of the production not lost, if any; and the disaster payment received under this part, cannot exceed 95 percent of what the production's value would have been if there had been no loss. In no case, however, may the value of production and the payment exceed the value the milk would have without the loss.
(f)A reserve may be created to handle pending or disputed claims, but claims will not be payable once the available funding is expended. § 786.108 Availability of funds. The total available program funds are $16 million as provided by section 9007 of Title IX of Public Law 110-28. § 786.109 Appeals. Provisions of the appeal regulations set forth at 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 apply to this part. Appeals of determinations of ineligibility or payment amounts are subject to the limitations in §§ 786.107 and 786.108 and other limitations that may apply. § 786.110 Misrepresentation, scheme, or device.
(a)In addition to other penalties, sanctions, or remedies that may apply, a dairy producer is ineligible to receive assistance under this program if the producer is determined by FSA to have:
(1)Adopted any scheme or device that tends to defeat the purpose of this program,
(2)Made any fraudulent representation,
(3)Misrepresented any fact affecting a program determination, or
(4)Violated 7 CFR 795.17 and thus be ineligible for the year(s) of violation and the subsequent year.
(b)Any funds disbursed pursuant to this part to any person or dairy operation engaged in a misrepresentation, scheme, or device, must be refunded with interest together with such other sums as may become due. Interest will run from the date of the disbursement to the producer or other recipient of the payment from FSA. Any person or dairy operation engaged in acts prohibited by this section and any person or dairy operation receiving payment under this part is jointly and severally liable with other persons or dairy operations involved in such claim for benefits for any refund due under this section and for related charges. The remedies provided in this part are in addition to other civil, criminal, or administrative remedies that may apply. § 786.111 Death, incompetence, or disappearance. In the case of death, incompetency, disappearance, or dissolution of an individual or entity that is eligible to receive benefits in accordance with this part, such alternate person or persons specified in 7 CFR part 707 may receive such benefits, as determined appropriate by FSA. § 786.112 Maintaining records. Persons applying for benefits under this program must maintain records and accounts to document all eligibility requirements specified herein and must keep such records and accounts for 3 years after the date of payment to their dairy operations under this program. Destruction of the records after such date is at the risk of the party required, by this part, to keep the records. § 786.113 Refunds; joint and several liability.
(a)Excess payments, payments provided as the result of erroneous information provided by any person, or payments resulting from a failure to meet any requirement or condition for payment under the application or this part, must be refunded to FSA.
(b)A refund required under this section is due with interest determined in accordance with paragraph
(d)of this section and late payment charges as provided in 7 CFR part 792. Notwithstanding any other regulation, interest will be due from the date of the disbursement to the producer or other recipient of the funds.
(c)Persons signing a dairy operation's application as having an interest in the operation will be jointly and severally liable for any refund and related charges found to be due under this section.
(d)In the event FSA determines a participant owes a refund under this part, FSA will charge program interest from the date of disbursement of the erroneous payment. Such interest will accrue at the rate that the United States Department of the Treasury charges FSA for funds plus additional charges as deemed appropriate by the Administrator or provided for by regulation or statute.
(e)The debt collection provisions of part 792 of this chapter applies to this part except as is otherwise provided in this part. § 786.114 Miscellaneous provisions.
(a)Payments or any portion thereof due under this part must be made without regard to questions of title under State law and without regard to any claim or lien against the livestock, or proceeds thereof, in favor of the owner or any other creditor except agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. Government.
(b)Any producer entitled to any payment under this part may assign any payments in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 1404. § 786.115 Termination of program. This program will be terminated after payment has been made to those applicants certified as eligible pursuant to the application period established in § 786.104. All eligibility determinations will be final except as otherwise determined by the Deputy Administrator. Any claim for payment may be denied once the allowed funds are expended, irrespective of any other provision of this part. Signed at Washington, DC, on February 20, 2008. Thomas B. Hofeller, Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-4141 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0202; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-185-AD; Amendment 39-15399; AD 2008-05-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 series airplanes. This AD requires an inspection of the vertical fin lugs, skin, and skin edges for discrepancies; an inspection of the flight control cables, fittings, and pulleys in section 48 for signs of corrosion; an inspection of the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, ball nut, and gimbal pins for signs of corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports indicating that moisture was found within the section 48 cavity. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the correct amount of sealant was applied around the vertical fin lugs, skin and the skin edges. Missing sealant could result in icing of the elevator cables, which could cause a system jam and corrosion of structural and flight control parts, resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 8, 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: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6447; fax
(425)917-6590. 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 Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64955). That NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the vertical fin lugs, skin, and skin edges for discrepancies; an inspection of the flight control cables, fittings, and pulleys in section 48 for signs of corrosion; an inspection of the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, ball nut, and gimbal pins for signs of corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Boeing, the single commenter, supports the NPRM. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are 829 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 372 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $29,760, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General Requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings 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: **2008-05-05 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15399. Docket No. FAA-2007-0202; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-185-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to certain Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports indicating that moisture was found within the section 48 cavity. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the correct amount of sealant was applied around the vertical fin lugs, skin and the skin edges. Missing sealant could result in icing of the elevator cables, which could cause a system jam and corrosion of structural and flight control parts, resulting in 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
(f)Within 2,500 flight cycles or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the detailed inspections specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2007.
(1)Do a detailed inspection of the vertical fin lugs, skin, and skin edges for discrepancies (i.e., water ingress; corrosion damage; and missing, insufficient, or cracked sealant).
(2)Do a detailed inspection of the flight control cables, fittings, and pulleys in section 48 for signs of corrosion.
(3)Do a detailed inspection of the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, ball nut, and gimbal pins for signs of corrosion. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector (i.e., the person performing the inspection). Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” Corrective Actions
(g)If any discrepancy or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 2007; except where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD. Credit for Actions Done Using the Previous Service Information
(h)Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, dated October 17, 2002; or Revision 1, dated April 28, 2005; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(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
(j)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1242, Revision 2, dated April 23, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
(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 February 20, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3821 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0215; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-216-AD; Amendment 39-15407; AD 2008-05-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting contactors 1K4XD, 2K4XD, and K4XA to determine the type of terminal base plate, and applying sealant on the terminal base plates if necessary. This AD requires an inspection to determine if certain alternating current
(AC)service and utility bus contactors have a terminal base plate made from non-G9 melamine material, and corrective actions if necessary; or re-identification of the mounting tray of the contactors; as applicable. This AD also limits the applicability of the existing AD. This AD results from incidents of short circuit failures of certain AC contactors located in the avionics bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 8, 2008. On August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45364, August 9, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. 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: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone
(516)228-7311; fax
(516)794-5531. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-17-14, amendment 39-14735 (71 FR 49337, August 23, 2006). The existing AD applies to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 21, 2007 (72 FR 65474). That NPRM proposed to require inspecting contactors 1K4XD, 2K4XD, and K4XA to determine the type of terminal base plate, and applying sealant on the terminal base plates, if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to require an inspection to determine if certain alternating current
(AC)service and utility bus contactors have a terminal base plate made from non-G9 melamine material, and corrective actions if necessary; or re-identification of the mounting tray of the contactors; as applicable. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received from one commenter. Request To Give Credit for Actions Already Done The commenter, Larry Nelson, requests that the phrase “unless already accomplished” be added to paragraph
(h)of the NPRM after the compliance time. The commenter notes that Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-17R1, dated May 30, 2007 (referred to in the NPRM as related information), states, “Within 12 months from the effective date of this directive, unless already accomplished.” We do not agree. A similar phrase is already in paragraph
(e)of this AD. Paragraph
(e)states, “You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.” We have not changed the AD in this regard. Request To Allow Earlier Revisions of Service Bulletin The commenter, Larry Nelson, requests that Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, dated November 13, 2006; or Revision A, dated December 7, 2006; be considered acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph
(h)of the NPRM. The commenter states that the technical content in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, Revision B, dated February 16, 2007 (referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service information for doing the proposed actions) did not change. We do not agree. Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, Revision B, includes additional actions (i.e., a general visual inspection, re-identification, and applicable corrective actions, as identified as Part C in the service bulletin) beyond those in earlier revisions of the service bulletin. Also, Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-17R1, which this AD parallels, refers to Revision B or later revisions of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for doing the required actions. However, this AD does not refer to “or later revisions” of the service bulletin. Affected operators may request approval to use a later revision of the referenced service bulletin as an alternative method of compliance, under the provisions of paragraph
(j)of the AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comment that has been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection (required by AD 2006-17-14) 3 $80 $240 739 $177,360. New actions (depending on the airplane configuration) 1 or 2 80 $80 or $160 739 Between $59,120 and $118,240. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14735 (71 FR 49337, August 23, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-05-13 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair):** Amendment 39-15407. Docket No. FAA-2007-0215; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-216-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-17-14. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 and 440) airplanes, certificated in any category; serial numbers 7003 through 7990 inclusive, and 8000 through 8070 inclusive. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from incidents of short circuit failures of certain alternating current
(AC)contactors located in the avionics bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent short circuit failures of certain AC contactors, which could result in arcing and consequent smoke or fire. 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. REQUIREMENTS OF AD 2006-17-14 Inspection and Corrective Action
(f)Within 800 flight hours or four months after September 7, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-17-14), whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of AC bus contactors 1K4XD and 2K4XD, part number (P/N) D-18ZZA, and the bus contactor K4XA, P/N D-7GRZ, to determine which contactors have an Ultem 2200 terminal base plate (i.e., the plate is made from a black molded thermal plastic material), and apply RTV sealant to the terminal base plate, as applicable, by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006. Do all applicable applications of sealant before further flight. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Previous Actions Accomplished According to Other Service Information
(g)Actions accomplished before September 7, 2006, in accordance with Bombardier Drawing Number K601R50180, dated June 2, 2006; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, dated June 27, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. NEW REQUIREMENTS OF THIS AD Inspection and Corrective Action
(h)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection, re-identification, and corrective actions, as applicable, by doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, Revision B, dated February 16, 2007. Do the applicable corrective action before further flight. Accomplishment of these actions constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Parts Installation
(i)As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any AC contactor 1K4XD, 2K4XD, or K4XA, having a non-G9 melamine terminal base plate, on any airplane. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, New York 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. Related Information
(k)Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-17R1, dated May 30, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(l)You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, Revision B, dated February 16, 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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-123, Revision B, dated February 16, 2007, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2)On August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45364, August 9, 2006), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-122, Revision A, dated July 13, 2006.
(3)Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 25, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3982 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0338; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-139-AD; Amendment 39-15396; AD 2008-05-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That AD currently requires reviewing the airplane maintenance records for recent reports of vibration from the tail section or rudder pedals. The existing AD also currently requires repetitively inspecting the skin, attachment fittings, and control rods of rudder II to detect cracking, loose parts, wear, or damage; and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires the existing repetitive inspection to be done with new service information. This new AD also requires replacing the locking tab washers on the control rods of the rudder II and installing springs on the hinge assemblies of the rudder II, which would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements. This AD results from reports of rudder vibration due to wear. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of multiple hinge fittings, which could result in severe vibration, and to prevent failure of the rudder control rods, which could result in jamming of the rudder II; and possible structural failure and reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 8, 2008. On December 23, 2005 (70 FR 72902, December 8, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010, dated August 26, 2005; and EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A036, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2005. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; 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 supersedes AD 2005-25-04, amendment 39-14397 (70 FR 72902, December 8, 2005). The existing AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71281). That NPRM proposed to continue to require reviewing the airplane maintenance records for recent reports of vibration from the tail section or rudder pedals. The NPRM also proposed to continue to require repetitively inspecting the skin, attachment fittings, and control rods of rudder II to detect cracking, loose parts, wear, or damage; and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. In addition to the existing requirements, the NPRM proposed to require that the existing repetitive inspection be done with new service information. The NPRM also proposed to require replacing the locking tab washers on the control rods of the rudder II and installing springs on the hinge assemblies of the rudder II, which would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been received on the 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. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Records review (required by AD 2005-25-04) 1 $80 None $80 463 $37,040 Terminating action (new action) 5 80 $644 1,044 463 483,372 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3)Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14397 (70 FR 72902, December 8, 2005) and by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2008-05-02 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Amendment 39-15396. Docket No. FAA-2007-0338; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-139-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2005-25-04. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of rudder vibration due to wear. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of multiple hinge fittings, which could result in severe vibration, and to prevent failure of the rudder control rods, which could result in jamming of the rudder II; and possible structural failure and 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. REQUIREMENTS OF AD 2005-25-04 Records Review
(f)Within 5 days after December 23, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-25-04): Review the airplane maintenance records to determine whether any vibration from the tail section or rudder pedals was reported within 120 flight hours or 100 flight cycles before December 23, 2005. Inspection
(g)At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the skin, attachment fittings, and control rods of rudder II to detect cracks, loose parts, wear, or damage. Inspect in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010, dated August 26, 2005 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes); or 145-55-A036, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2005 (for all other airplanes); except as provided by paragraph
(l)of this AD. Do all related investigative/corrective actions before further flight by doing all applicable actions specified in the service bulletin; except as required by paragraphs
(i)and
(l)of this AD. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours, except as required by paragraph
(h)of this AD.
(1)If any vibration was reported during the time period specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD, inspect within 2 days after the records review.
(2)If no vibration was reported during the time period specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD, except as required by paragraph
(h)of this AD, inspect before the later of:
(i)2,500 total accumulated flight hours.
(ii)600 flight hours or 500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after December 23, 2005. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as a mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(h)If any vibration from the tail section or rudder pedals is reported after December 23, 2005, do the inspection specified in paragraph
(g)of this AD before the next flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight hours. Note 2: EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletins 145LEG-55-A010, dated August 26, 2005; and 145-55-A036, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2005; refer to EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145LEG-55-0008, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2005; 145LEG-55-0009, dated June 21, 2004; and 145-55-0034, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2005; as additional sources of service information for installing washers in the rudder II hinge fittings and control rod assembly. Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications
(i)Where EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletins 145LEG-55-A010 and 145-55-A036 specify to contact EMBRAER for repair instructions, operators must perform the repair before further flight using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Departmento de Aviacao Civil (or its delegated agent).
(j)Although EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletins 145LEG-55-A010 and 145-55-A036 recommend sending a report of the inspection results to the manufacturer, this AD does not require a report. Credit for Prior Accomplishment of Earlier Service Bulletin
(k)For Model -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes: Accomplishment of the inspection and applicable related investigative/corrective actions before December 23, 2005, in accordance with EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A036, dated August 20, 2005, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. NEW REQUIREMENTS OF THIS AD New Revision to Service Bulletins
(l)As of the effective date of this AD, use only the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010, Revision 02, dated May 16, 2006 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes); or 145-55-A036, Revision 03, dated May 16, 2006 (for all other airplanes); as applicable; to do the actions required by paragraphs
(g)and
(h)of this AD, until the actions required by paragraph
(m)of this AD are done. Note 3: EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010, Revision 02, dated May 16, 2006 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes) refers to EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145LEG-55-0008, Revision 02, dated May 26, 2006; and 145LEG-55-0009, Revision 01, dated November 23, 2005; as additional sources of service information for installing washers in the rudder II hinge fittings and control rod assembly. Note 4: EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A036, Revision 03, dated May 16, 2006 (for EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes), refers to EMBRAER Service Bulletins 145-55-0034, Revision 02, dated May 25, 2006; and 145-55-0035, Revision 02, dated March 28, 2006; as additional sources of service information for installing washers in the rudder II hinge fittings and control rod assembly. Terminating Action
(m)Within 5,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the locking tab washers on the control rods of the rudder II and install springs on the hinge assemblies of the rudder II, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-0011, Revision 01, dated January 23, 2007 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes); or 145-55-0038, Revision 01, dated January 23, 2007 (for all other airplanes); as applicable. Accomplishment of the replacement and installation constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Credit for Prior Accomplishment of Earlier Service Bulletins
(n)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-0011, dated May 12, 2006 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes); or 145-55-0038, dated May 12, 2006 (for all other airplanes); as applicable; are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(m)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (o)(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.
(3)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2005-25-04 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information
(p)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-09-02R2, effective May 10, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(q)You must use the service information identified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Table 1.—All Material Incorporated by Reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision level Date Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010 1 August 26, 2005. Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010 02 May 16, 2006. Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A036 01 September 5, 2005. Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A036 03 May 16, 2006. Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-0011 01 January 23, 2007. Service Bulletin 145-55-0038 01 January 23, 2007. 1 Original.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information identified in Table 2 of this AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Table 2.—New Material Incorporated by Reference EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision level Date Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010 02 May 16, 2006. Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A036 03 May 16, 2006. Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-0011 01 January 23, 2007. Service Bulletin 145-55-0038 01 January 23, 2007.
(2)On December 23, 2005 (70 FR 72902, December 8, 2005), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145LEG-55-A010, dated August 26, 2005; and EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 145-55-A036, Revision 01, dated September 5, 2005.
(3)Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3748 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0204; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-083-AD; Amendment 39-15397; AD 2008-05-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR Series Airplanes Powered by General Electric
(GE)CF6-45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3 or JT9D-7 Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes powered by General Electric
(GE)CF6-45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3, or JT9D-7 series engines. This AD requires repetitive inspections to find cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, this AD mandates a terminating modification for certain inspections of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. This AD results from reports of web and frame cracks and sheared attachment fasteners on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in possible loss of the rear engine mount bulkhead load path and consequent separation of the engine from the airplane. DATES: This AD is effective April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 8, 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: Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6421; fax
(425)917-6590. 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 Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes powered by General Electric
(GE)CF6-45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3, or JT9D-7 series engines. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64961). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections to find cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, that NPRM proposed to mandate a terminating modification for certain inspections of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Boeing supports the NPRM. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are about 460 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 135 airplanes of U.S. registry. It takes about 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required detailed inspection, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the required inspection is $43,200, or $320 per airplane, per inspection cycle. It takes about 32 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required high frequency eddy current inspection, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the required high frequency eddy current inspection is $345,600, or $2,560 per airplane, per inspection cycle. For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes, it takes between approximately 10 and 95 work hours per strut (four struts per airplane) to accomplish the required modification, depending on airplane configuration, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Parts cost for the fasteners is between $269 and $897 per strut. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required modification is between $4,276 and $33,988 per airplane. We are unable to provide specific information as to the cost of the actual parts other than the fasteners that are required to accomplish the required modification since the parts will be supplied from operator stock. 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: **2008-05-03 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15397. Docket No. FAA-2007-0204; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-083-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD,—200B,—200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes; certificated in any category; powered by General Electric
(GE)CF6-45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3, or JT9D-7 series engines; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of web and frame cracks and sheared attachment fasteners on the inboard and outboard nacelle strut. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in possible loss of the rear engine mount bulkhead load path and consequent separation of the engine from 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. Compliance Times
(f)Do all applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i)of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006, except that where paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin specifies starting the compliance time from “* * * the release date of Revision 1 of this service bulletin,” this AD requires starting the compliance time from the effective date of this AD. Initial and Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions
(g)For all airplanes: Perform detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Repeat the applicable inspection and actions thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Accomplishing the applicable repair (Repair 1, 2, 3, or 4, or repair per the Boeing 747 Structural Repair Manual, Section 54-11-03 or 54-12-03) terminates the requirements in this paragraph for that nacelle strut only. Modification
(h)For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes: Do the applicable modification (Repair 2, 3, or 4) of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and all the applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Accomplishing this modification terminates the requirements in paragraph
(g)of this AD for that nacelle strut only. Post-Modification Inspection/Corrective Actions
(i)For Groups 1, 2, and 5 airplanes on which the applicable corrective actions (Repair 1, 2, 3, or 4) required by paragraph
(g)of this AD have been accomplished; or the applicable modification (Repair 2, 3, or 4) required by paragraph
(h)of this AD has been accomplished: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006. Repeat the applicable inspections and actions thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Exception to Service Bulletin
(j)If any crack or any broken fastener is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2006, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(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
(l)You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2202, Revision 1, dated June 22, 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, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
(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 February 20, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3749 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD; Amendment 39-15403; AD 2008-05-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company 172, 182, and 206 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 172, 182, and 206 series airplanes. This AD requires you to remove the crew seats, modify the seat base/back attach brackets, and reinstall the seats of the affected airplanes. This AD results from reports of the seat base/back attach bracket failing where it is welded to the seat base. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the seat base/back attach brackets, which could result in the seats collapsing backwards during flight with consequent loss of control. DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008. On April 8, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:
(316)517-5800; fax:
(316)942-9006. 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* . The docket number is FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4123; fax:
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On July 12, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Cessna Models 172, 182, and 206 airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39584). The NPRM proposed to remove the crew seats, modify the seat base/back attach brackets, and reinstall the seats of the affected airplanes and seats 3 and 4 on 206 series airplanes. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment: Comment Issue No. 1: Number of Affected Airplanes Jack Buster with the Modification and Replacement Part Association (MARPA) noted that the airworthiness concern sheet stated the proposed AD action affected 2,770 airplanes and the actual proposed AD stated the action affected 1,556 airplanes. He requests we clarify the number of the affected airplanes. The FAA agrees that the numbers in the airworthiness concern sheet and the proposed AD differ. There are 2,770 airplanes worldwide but only 1,556 airplanes on the U.S. Registry. In the Cost of Compliance section of the AD preamble we state how many airplanes are listed on the U.S. Registry. We will not change the final rule AD action as a result of this comment. Comment Issue No. 2: Availability of Incorporated by Reference
(IBR)Documents in the Docket Management System
(DMS)Jack Buster of MARPA requests IBR documents be available to the public by publication in the DMS. The FAA has transitioned from the DMS to the government-wide Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). We are currently reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins in the FDMS as part of the AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. Comment Issue No. 3: Exempting Non-crew Seats From This AD Action The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association requests that the FAA exempt non-crew seats from the AD action. Modification of the third and fourth seats on the Cessna Model 206 is estimated at just under $1,000 per aircraft and does not directly address the safety of flight issue proposed for this AD. The third and fourth seats are not crew seats and pose little to no risk that a seat collapse could cause the pilot to lose control of the airplane. The FAA agrees that the modification of the third and fourth seats on the Cessna 206 does not directly address the safety of flight issue proposed for this AD. We will change the final rule AD action as a result of this comment and not include seats 3 and 4 on 206 series airplanes. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 1,556 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the modification: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 5 work-hours × $80 per hour = $400 (for two crew seats) $800 (for two crew seats) $1,200 $1,867,200 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows: **2008-05-09 Cessna Aircraft Company:** Amendment 39-15403; Docket No. FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models Serial Nos.
(1)172R 17281211 through 17281356.
(2)172S 172S9621 through 172S10310, 172S10312 through 172S10324, 172S10327 through 172S10332, 172S10334 through 172S10349, 172S10351 through 172S10374, 172S10376 through 172S10386, 172S10388 through 172S10408, 172S10410 through 172S10412, 172S10414 through 172S10417, and 172S10421 through 172S10423.
(3)182T 18281328 through 18281867, 18281869 through 18281871, 18281873 through 18281875, and 18281877.
(4)T182T T18208240 through T18208651, T18208654, T18208656 through T18208659, T18208663, T18208664, and T18208667 through T18208668.
(5)206H 20608216 through 20608283.
(6)T206H T20608445 through T20608662, T20608664 through T20608671, T20608673, T20608674, T20608676 through T20608681, T20608683 through T20608689, T20608691, T20608692, T20608694 through T20608696, T20608699 through T20608701, T20608703, and T20608704. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of the seat base/back attach bracket failing where it is welded to the seat base. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the seat base/back attach brackets, which could result in the seats collapsing backwards during flight with consequent loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures Remove, modify, and reinstall the crew seats Within the next 50 hours time-in-service after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 months after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Single Engine Modification Kit No. MK206-25-10, dated April 23, 2007, as specified in Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin SB07-25-04, dated April 23, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft 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: Gary Park, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4123; fax:
(316)946-4107. 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
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:
(316)517-5800; fax:
(316)942-9006. 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://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-28433; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-052-AD. Material Incorporated by Reference
(h)You must use Cessna Aircraft Company Single Engine Modification Kit No. MK206-25-10, dated April 23, 2007, as specified in Cessna Aircraft Company Service Bulletin SB07-25-04, dated April 23, 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 Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:
(316)517-5800; fax:
(316)942-9006.
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 22, 2008. Patrick R. Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3771 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0224; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-188-AD; Amendment 39-15400; AD 2008-05-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord located at certain body stations, and repair if necessary. This AD results from several reports of cracks in the center wing box longitudinal floor beams, upper chord, and lower chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower chords and web of the longitudinal floor beams, which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure. DATES: This AD is effective April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 8, 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: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6440; fax
(425)917-6590. 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 Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2007 (72 FR 65911). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord located at certain body stations, and repair if necessary. Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Boeing, the single commenter, supports the NPRM. Conclusion We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. Costs of Compliance There are 2,852 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required inspection takes approximately 13 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the required inspection for U.S. operators is $678,080, or $1,040 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 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: **2008-05-06 Boeing:** Amendment 39-15400. Docket No. FAA-2007-0224; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-188-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)is effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from several reports of cracks in the center wing box longitudinal floor beams, upper chord, and lower chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper and lower chords and web of the longitudinal floor beams, which could result in rapid loss of cabin pressure. 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)Do the various inspections for fatigue cracks in the longitudinal floor beam web, upper chord, and lower chord, located at the applicable body stations specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Do the inspections at the time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1)For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes as identified in the service bulletin: Do the inspections at the applicable initial compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin; except, 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. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin.
(2)For Group 3 airplanes as identified in the service bulletin: Do the inspections at the applicable initial compliance time listed in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin; except, 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. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin.
(g)If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 2007, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(h)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(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. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1296, dated June 13, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
(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 February 20, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3810 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29334; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-268-AD; Amendment 39-15398; AD 2008-05-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 Airplanes and A340-200 and -300 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: [A]ll permanent fuselage skin * * * and lap joint doubler * * * repair principles published in the SRM (Structural Repair Manual) * * * have been replaced with Oct/05 Revision by updated, simplified and harmonized repair principles. These updates led to the de-validation of some repairs and to reassess the repair inspection requirements. This situation if not corrected, can affect the aircraft structural integrity with a possible risk of decompression. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 8, 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 Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; 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 28, 2007 (72 FR 55108). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A review of the repair substantiations of the SRM (Structural Repair Manual) has been done to take into account the latest aircraft operational data (Aircraft Weight Variant and Fatigue Flight Mission Profiles). As a result, all permanent fuselage skin (Figure 202-210/213-214) and lap joint doubler (Figure 215-216) repair principles published in the SRM chapter 53-00-11, Page Block 201 have been replaced with Oct/05 Revision by updated, simplified and harmonized repair principles. These updates led to the de-validation of some repairs and to reassess the repair inspection requirements. This situation if not corrected, can affect the aircraft structural integrity with a possible risk of decompression. In order to maintain the structural integrity, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)renders mandatory the inspection of the fuselage to identify possible permanent skin repairs and permanent longitudinal lap joint repairs and to apply the associated corrective actions. The corrective actions include contacting Airbus for repair/inspection instructions, and repair, as applicable, for skin repairs or longitudinal lap joint repairs that were done in accordance with the repair principles in Airbus A330 or A340-200/300 SRM chapter 53-00-11, Page Block 201, before October 2005, or repairs that were done without using an individual repair design approval sheet provided by Airbus. 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 9 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 9 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 $6,480, or $720 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: **2008-05-04 Airbus:** Amendment 39-15398. Docket No. FAA-2007-29334; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-268-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes; all certified models, all serial numbers; certificated in any category; except those on which Airbus Modification 49144 (install rudder fly by wire) has been embodied in production. Subject
(d)Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: A review of the repair substantiations of the SRM (Structural Repair Manual) has been done to take into account the latest aircraft operational data (Aircraft Weight Variant and Fatigue Flight Mission Profiles). As a result, all permanent fuselage skin (Figure 202-210/213-214) and lap joint doubler (Figure 215-216) repair principles published in the SRM chapter 53-00-11, Page Block 201 have been replaced with Oct/05 Revision by updated, simplified and harmonized repair principles. These updates led to the de-validation of some repairs and to reassess the repair inspection requirements. This situation if not corrected, can affect the aircraft structural integrity with a possible risk of decompression. In order to maintain the structural integrity, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)renders mandatory the inspection of the fuselage to identify possible permanent skin repairs and permanent longitudinal lap joint repairs and to apply the associated corrective actions. The corrective actions include contacting Airbus for repair/inspection instructions, and repair, as applicable, for skin repairs or longitudinal lap joint repairs that were done in accordance with the repair principles in Airbus A330 or A340-200/300 SRM chapter 53-00-11, Page Block 201, before October 2005, or repairs that were done without using an individual repair design approval sheet provided by Airbus. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)For airplanes with Weight Variant
(WV)greater than WV 004 and lower than or equal to WV 027 (for Model A330 airplanes) or WV 029 (for Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes): Do the actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i)Perform a detailed visual inspection of the fuselage outer skin for permanent skin repairs in the area between frame
(FR)54 and FR 58; and for permanent longitudinal lap joint repairs in the area between FR 53.3 and FR 58 (for Section 15, between FR 53.3 and FR 54, only in the area between stringer
(STGR)22LH (left-hand) and STGR 22RH (right-hand) upper shell); and as applicable, apply the corrective actions before further flight. Perform the actions in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3161, dated April 14, 2006; or A340-53-4166, dated April 6, 2006; as applicable.
(ii)Perform a detailed visual inspection of the fuselage outer skin for permanent skin repairs in the area between FR 18 and FR 38, and between FR 58 and FR 91; and for permanent longitudinal lap joint repairs in the area between FR 18 and FR 53.3, and between FR 58 and FR 91 (for Section 15, between FR 39 and FR 53.3, only in the area between STGR 22LH and STGR 22RH upper shell); and as applicable, apply the corrective actions before further flight. Perform the actions in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3162 or A340-53-4167, both dated April 6, 2006, as applicable.
(2)For airplanes with WV lower than or equal to WV 004: Perform a detailed visual inspection of the fuselage outer skin for permanent skin repairs in the area between FR 18 and FR 38, and between FR 54 and FR 91; and for permanent longitudinal lap joint repairs in the area between FR 18 and FR 91 (for Section 15, between FR 39 and FR 54, only in the area between STGR 22LH and STGR 22RH upper shell); and as applicable, apply the corrective actions before further flight. Perform the actions in accordance with the instructions given in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3162 or A340-53-4167, both dated April 6, 2006, as applicable. 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 Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2797; 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 Directives 2006-0332 and 2006-0333, both dated October 27, 2006; and the Airbus service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Table 1.—Service Information Airbus Service Bulletin Date A330-53-3161 April 14, 2006. A330-53-3162 April 6, 2006. A340-53-4166 April 6, 2006. A340-53-4167 April 6, 2006. 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 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 2.—Material Incorporated by Reference Airbus Service Bulletin Date A330-53-3161 April 14, 2006. A330-53-3162 April 6, 2006. A340-53-4166 April 6, 2006. A340-53-4167 April 6, 2006. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3813 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-138-AD; Amendment 39-15401; AD 2008-05-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Fan Jet Falcon, Fan Jet Falcon Series C, D, E, F, and G Airplanes; Model Mystere-Falcon 200 Airplanes; and Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 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: One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank * * * located in the Right Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed upside down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an unexpected 5° positioning offset of the elevator control surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving] the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which resulted in a hard landing]. The unsafe condition is 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 April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 8, 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 November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63829). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank P/N (part number) MY20273017 or P/N MY20273017015 located in the Right Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed upside down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an unexpected 5° positioning offset of the elevator control surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving] the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which resulted in a hard landing]. The purpose of this AD is to prevent reoccurrence of this kind of incident introducing disabusing markings on the incriminated parts by applying SB (Service Bulletin) F20-768 or SB F200-122 as appropriate. The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane. Corrective actions include verifying the correct assembly of the elevator bellcrank and re-installing 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. 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 255 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 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 $9 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 $63,495, or $249 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: **2008-05-07 Dassault Aviation (Formerly Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA)):** Amendment 39-15401. Docket No. FAA-2007-0182; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-138-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Dassault Model Fan Jet Falcon, Fan Jet Falcon series C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model Mystere-Falcon 200 airplanes; and Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 27: Flight Controls. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: One occurrence has been reported where a maintenance operation had been performed on the elevator controls, and bellcrank P/N (part number) MY20273017 or P/N MY20273017015 located in the Right Hand MLG (main landing gear) wheel well was mistakenly installed upside down. This discrepancy and improper installation caused an unexpected 5° positioning offset of the elevator control surfaces leading to a hazardous condition on landing, [involving] the pilot being unable to flare the aircraft as needed * * * [which resulted in a hard landing]. The purpose of this AD is to prevent reoccurrence of this kind of incident introducing disabusing markings on the incriminated parts by applying SB (Service Bulletin) F20-768 or SB F200-122 as appropriate. The unsafe condition is reduced controllability of the airplane. Corrective actions include verifying the correct assembly of the elevator bellcrank and re-installing if necessary. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 74 months from the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Verify the correct assembly of the elevator bellcrank P/N (part number) MY20273-17 or P/N MY20273-17-15 at frame 26, as instructed in Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable.
(2)If the elevator bellcrank is found in the reverse orientation, reinstall it prior to next flight in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable.
(3)Label the elevator bellcrank as instructed in Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 2006; as applicable. 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, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 2006-0185, dated July 6, 2006, and Dassault Service Bulletins F20-768 and F200-122, both dated May 23, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Dassault Service Bulletin F20-768, dated May 23, 2006; or Dassault Service Bulletin F200-122, dated May 23, 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 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* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3816 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0369; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-258-AD; Amendment 39-15402; AD 2008-05-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 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: Some occurrences have been reported where life rafts were difficult to remove from inside divan compartment. Investigations revealed that: —Life raft was incorrectly stowed, with deployment straps inboard; —Life raft had not been repacked to specified dimensions We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products. DATES: This AD becomes effective April 8, 2008. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 8, 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 December 20, 2007 (72 FR 72273). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Some occurrences have been reported where life rafts were difficult to remove from inside divan compartment. Investigations revealed that: —Life raft was incorrectly stowed, with deployment straps inboard; —Life raft had not been repacked to specified dimensions The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is to verify that all life rafts are stowed correctly with deployment straps outboard, and are repacked to specified dimensions. Corrective actions include correctly reinstalling an incorrectly stowed life raft, installing a properly repacked life raft, and installing placards. 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 25 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour 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 $68 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 $3,700, or $148 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: **2008-05-08 Dassault Aviation:** Amendment 39-15402. Docket No. FAA-2007-0369; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-258-AD. Effective Date
(a)This airworthiness directive
(AD)becomes effective April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 294, 299, 301 through 304, 306, 307, 310, 313, 314, 316 through 320, 322 through 331, 334 through 337 and 339. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Some occurrences have been reported where life rafts were difficult to remove from inside divan compartment. Investigations revealed that: —Life raft was incorrectly stowed, with deployment straps inboard; —Life raft had not been repacked to specified dimensions. The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is to verify that all life rafts are stowed correctly with deployment straps outboard, and are repacked to specified dimensions. Corrective actions include correctly reinstalling an incorrectly stowed life raft, installing a properly repacked life raft, and installing placards. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 10 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD: Verify that the life rafts are stowed correctly, with deployment straps outboard, in accordance with the instructions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F50-480, dated December 5, 2006, and verify that the overall dimensions of the life raft hard pack do not exceed nominal values, as indicated in Part F50-480-1 of the service bulletin.
(i)If a life raft is found incorrectly stowed, before next flight, reinstall it in accordance with the instructions specified in Part F50-480-1 of the service bulletin.
(ii)If nominal values of the overall dimensions of the life raft hard pack are exceeded, within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, install a properly repacked life raft as instructed in Part F50-480-2 of the service bulletin. Note 1: Notice that with no life raft aboard, local national operating regulations may not allow some extended overwater flights.
(2)Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Install placards on the sofa in accordance with the instructions specified in Part F50-480-2 of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-480, dated December 5, 2006. FAA AD Differences Note 2: 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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0366, dated December 11, 2006, and Dassault Service Bulletin F50-480, dated December 5, 2006, for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference
(i)You must use Dassault Service Bulletin F50-480, dated December 5, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1)The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of 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* . Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3818 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD; Amendment 39-15405; AD 2008-05-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)to supersede AD 76-23-03 R1, which applies to certain Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, and 17-31A airplanes. AD 76-23-03 R1 currently requires you to inspect the muffler and tailpipe assemblies for cracks and inspect the exhaust assembly for freedom of movement at the ball joints. Since we issued AD 76-23-03-R1, we have received additional reports of in-flight exhaust system failures. Consequently, this AD reduces the exhaust system inspection interval; requires a more detailed inspection of the muffler; and requires replacement, reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust system if cracks or defects are found. This AD also requires P-lead rerouting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the exhaust system, which could result in heat damage to magneto electrical wiring and smoke in the cockpit. This failure could lead to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment. DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008. On April 8, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bellanca/ Alexandria Aircraft LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN 56308; phone:
(320)763-4088; fax:
(320)763-4095; Internet: *http://www.bellanca-aircraft.com* . 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* . The docket number is FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone:
(847)294-7870; fax:
(847)294-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion On August 24, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes. This proposal was published in the **Federal Register** as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50297, August 31, 2007). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 76-23-03 R1 and would reduce the exhaust system inspection interval; require a more detailed inspection of the muffler; and require replacement, reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust system if cracks or defects are found. The NPRM also proposed to require P-lead rerouting. The NPRM was a result of additional reports of in-flight exhaust system failures since AD 76-23-03 R1 was issued. Comments We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment: Comment Issue No. 1: Remove the Models 17-31A and 17-31ATC Airplanes From the AD Dewey D. Elsik and Randall L. Pittman request that the FAA remove the Models 17-31A and 17-31ATC airplanes from the AD and only have it apply to Models 17-30 and 17-30A airplanes. The commenters state that the exhaust system design is different based on turbo-normalization components and the Lycoming engine version. The commenters point out that this is why the accidents only affect the Models 17-30 and 17-30A airplanes. The FAA acknowledges that there are variations in design. However, the type design data shows that the exhaust systems of the Models 17-31A and 17-30A are essentially identical, except for minor geometry variations to accommodate the different engine geometry. Both exhaust designs were assembled using internal welds where adequate inspection is not possible without disassembly. The Models 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31, and 17-31A should all be subject to the inspection requirements proposed in the NPRM. The Model 17-31TC is not part of the NPRM as written, and the Model 17-31ATC is exempt from the inspections because the exhaust systems of these models are significantly different and are not susceptible to the referenced failures. The Model 17-31ATC is included in the P-Lead rerouting requirement of the NPRM because its P-Lead configuration is essentially identical to that of the Model 17-30A. This requirement is in the NPRM to prevent loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment because both of its P-Leads are routed together to a common point through the firewall in close proximity to the exhaust system. We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this comment. Comment Issue No. 2: Only Apply the AD to Those Airplanes Included in the National Transportation Safety Board's
(NTSB)Listing of Accidents Dewey D. Elsik and Dave Taylor propose that the FAA remove the Models 17-30, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes from the AD because they cannot find an exhaust system failure for these airplanes included in the NTSB's listing of accidents. We disagree with the idea of removing these airplanes from the AD because they do not show up in the NTSB's listing of accidents. An AD is issued when “an unsafe condition exists in the product” and “the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.” If the type design is the same or similar to another airplane's where there has been an accident, then the AD should also apply to those airplanes with the same or similar type design if the FAA determines there is an unsafe condition. It is not necessary to wait for an accident to issue an AD. The lack of failures on the referenced airplanes could also be attributed to the following: • The Model 17-31A represents only 13 percent of the airplanes affected in the exhaust inspection requirement of the AD; • The Model 17-31ATC represents only 14 percent of the airplanes affected by the P-Lead rerouting portion of the AD; • This sampling is statistically too small to be used as an argument to exclude these models from the AD; and • Service history shows that the Model 17-31A exhaust system experiences cracks and requires repairs no different than that of the Models 17-30 and 17-30A. We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this comment. Comment Issue No. 3: Only the Exhaust Systems With V-clamps and Internal Welds Should Be Affected by the Increased Inspection Interval of 50 Hours TIS Instead of the 100 Hours TIS as Currently Required by AD 76-23-03 R1 Edward A. Connell requests that the FAA only require airplanes with exhaust systems with V-clamps and internal welds to inspect at intervals of 50 hours instead of the 100-hour intervals of AD 76-23-03 R1. Mr. Connell states that the AD is based on the original design of the exhaust system on the early Model 17-30A airplanes. This design uses a V-clamp to attach the tailpipe to the muffler, which has been the primary location of the reported exhaust system failures. This design also uses internal welds extensively in its construction and is very difficult to inspect. Mr. Connell explains that many Model 17-30A exhaust systems have been either repaired or replaced through FAA-approved repair facilities with a newer design that replaces the V-clamp with a three-bolt clamp arrangement. This newer design also included external welds to replace the internal welds. These externally welded exhaust systems are much easier to inspect and do not require the disassembly specified in the service letter. Mr. Connell proposes that the NPRM be revised so that only the exhaust systems with the V-clamps and the internal welds are subject to the increased 50-hour inspection intervals. The FAA partially agrees. We are not changing the applicability of the AD because the type design data shows all affected airplanes were manufactured with internal welds that can only be inspected through disassembly. In addition, although difficult to adjust, the V-clamp has not been identified as the root cause of the exhaust system failures. We acknowledge that airplanes with modified exhausts that are similar to the replacement parts configuration as presented in the service letter may provide an acceptable level of safety to exempt them from the increased inspection intervals of 50 hours TIS. Those owners/operators may apply for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC)using the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and the AD. We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this comment. Comment Issue No. 4: Apply the AD Only to the Model 17-30A Ronald Quillen states that the unsafe condition is shown to exist or develop only on the Model 17-30A airplanes. The commenter bases this on the following observations: • There have only been a total of eight NTSB-reported accidents relating to exhaust system and/or P-Lead failures, which represents less than 1 percent of the total airplanes produced and all failures occurred on Model 17-30A airplanes; • Of these eight failures, only three occurred after the issuance of AD 76-23-03 R1 (effective November 7, 1986). Three additional accidents occurred in 1985, just prior to the effective date of AD 76-23-03 R1. There was one other accident in 1977 and the first was in October 1976, which prompted the original AD 76-23-03. • The eight NTSB reports all apply to the early production years (prior to 1978-1979) of the Model 17-30A airplanes before the exhaust system was redesigned. • There are no NTSB-reported failures for Model 17-30A airplanes manufactured after 1978-1979 or for any other affected airplane model. • Failure of early year exhaust systems would direct gasses directly toward an electrical harness, which would exit a cannon connector parallel to the firewall and then be oriented inboard and downward. • The later production year exhaust systems do not direct gasses directly toward the electrical harness as it exits the cannon connector perpendicular to the firewall and above the point of failure, thus the reason for no failures reported on these later production exhaust systems. • Both the Lycoming-powered Model 17-31TC airplane (not included in the AD) and the Model 17-31ATC (not included in AD 76-23-03 R1, but included in the NPRM), have entirely different exhaust systems and do not have any ball joints shown to be prone to failure. Both models do not seem to have the unsafe condition, and it does not seem likely that the condition will exist or develop in the future. The FAA partially agrees. We agree that design changes to exhaust systems have been many over the years. However, all designs have included internal welds where inspection is not possible without disassembly. Also there has not been an exhaust system design change to address the issues of the AD until the exhaust system design defined in the replacement parts of Bellanca/AALC Service Letter B-110. Previous service letters, AD 76-23-03 R1, and the NPRM all address one failure mode of the hanger/mount/support/muffler/tailpipe/ball joint/welds of all airplane models, except for the Models 17-31TC and 17-31ATC airplanes. As specified earlier, these latter models have internal welds, the Model 17-31TC is not part of the AD, and the Model 17-ATC is not affected by the inspection requirement in the AD. The type design of the P-Lead configuration of the 17-31ATC is the same as that of the accident airplanes, which is why this airplane model is included in the AD, but only in the P-Lead rerouting requirement. This design must be modified to separate leads where they penetrate the firewall so one heat source (whether from directed exhaust gasses or other source) does not melt the insulation on both leads and short them to ground, which could cause loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment. If owners/operators of Model 17-31ATC already have a separated P-Lead configuration and believe the AD should not apply to them, then they may apply for an AMOC following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and this AD. We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this comment. Comment Issue No. 5: Exclude the Model 17-31ATC From the AD Randall L. Pittman, Ronald J. Quillen, and Edwin A. Stephan request that the FAA exclude the Model 17-31ATC from the AD based on: 1. Exhaust design or maintenance deficiencies related to P-Lead failures in Models 17-31ATC or 17-31TC are non-existent and not likely to develop. Since the Model 17-31TC is not included in the NPRM and both models share the same exhaust system, this justifies removing the Model 17-31ATC from the AD. 2. There has not been a single NTSB accident report for an exhaust or P-Lead failure on these airplanes. 3. The exhaust system design of the Model 17-31ATC is different than that of the Model 17-30 airplanes. It does not share the same geometry or construction details, which could lead to P-Lead failure as in the Model 17-30 airplanes. 4. There is no design basis of commonality to require the AD to affect the Model 17-31ATC airplanes. The P-Lead modification instructions specified in the NPRM do not apply to the Model 17-31ATC airplanes; the instructions are unique and specific for the Models 17-30 and 17-30A airplanes. Thus, an adequate comment period has not been provided for the Model 17-31ATC airplanes because no appropriate reference material and instructions have been provided in the NPRM. The FAA does not concur with exempting the Model 17-31 ATC airplanes from the AD, as follows: 1. The type design for the Model 17-31ATC airplanes does not have the same P-Lead configuration as the Model 17-31TC airplanes. The P-Lead configuration of the Model 17-31ATC is basically the same as the accident airplanes. The NTSB reports show that the loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment occurred when the exhaust system failed and allowed hot exhaust gas to melt the insulation on the P-Lead wires, which caused them to short in close proximity to the exhaust system. The P-Lead rerouting portion of the AD would correct this problem by separating the P-Leads and relocating them away from the exhaust system. Therefore, the Model 17-31ATC will remain as part of the Applicability of the AD. 2. The Model 17-31ATC airplanes have not been reported with a failure similar to the accident airplanes. This is most likely due to the small population that the Model 17-31ATC airplanes represent. The Models 17-31 and 17-31A airplanes also represent a small fleet size. The fleet size for the Models 17-31, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes are 1 percent, 12 percent, and 11 percent, respectively. The sampling is statistically not large enough to be used as criteria to exclude these airplanes from the AD. The similar P-Lead configuration design of the Model 17-30A that was involved in the NTSB-documented accidents justifies including all of these airplanes in the AD. 3. We agree that the exhaust system design of the Model 17-31ATC is different than the Model 17-30 airplanes. This is the reason why the Model 17-31ATC airplanes are not subject to the exhaust system inspections proposed in the NPRM. However, the type design for the P-Lead configuration for the Model 17-31ATC airplanes is basically the same as that of the accident airplanes, thus making the Model 17-31ATC airplanes subject to the proposed P-Lead rerouting requirement in the NPRM. 4. The Bellanca/AALC Service Kit SK1072 is intended to be used for all the airplanes specified in the NPRM, including the Model 17-31ATC airplanes. The procedures in the service information address the Teledyne-powered airplanes to illustrate details because they are most representative of the fleet. The service information includes notes in the instructions that extend to the other affected airplane models. As previously discussed, the Model 17-31TC is not part of the NPRM. Because the service information does apply to the Model 17-31ATC airplanes, there was adequate reference material available for comment. We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this comment. Comment Issue No. 6: Withdraw the NPRM Ronald J. Quillen requests that the FAA withdraw the NPRM because the existing ADs are sufficient, and the accident data supports this. The commenter states that the type design for the Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, and 17-31A airplane exhaust systems are identical (they were built at the factory during the same production time frame) except for minor differences due to geometry variations. All were manufactured with internal welds. This includes all assembled using internal welds. The commenter sets up time frames with the accidents to show that the current ADs are working, and the events do not justify the AD. The commenter also believes the FAA should withdraw the NPRM because of inaccurate statements made in both the NRPM and Airworthiness Concern Sheet
(ACS)as part of the Small Airplane Directorate's Airworthiness Concern Process. These are as follows: • *In the NPRM:* It states that AD 76-23-03 R1 “applies to certain Alexandria Aircraft, LLC (Bellanca) Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes.” The commenter states that AD 76-23-03 R1 did not apply to Model 17-31ATC airplanes. • *In the ACS:* It states “Seven other similar accidents occurred since 1986 when AD 76-23-03 was amended to solve this problem.” The commenter states that actually five accidents occurred prior to this AD, three in 1985 and two prior to that date with only three accidents following the issuance of the AD. Of the three that followed the AD, they were separated by 8 and 11 years respectively, which is clearly a dramatic reduction in the reported accident rate and frequency and likely directly attributable to the fact that the current AD is working. Of these accident airplanes, all were pre-1985 production Model 17-30A airplanes and shared the weld defect design of the exhaust systems and P-Lead failure likely due to routing directly aft of the exhaust system failure point. Edwin A. Stephan requests the FAA withdraw the NPRM because the instructions for commenting on the AD were confusing. The NPRM directed the commenters to the Docket Management System
(DMS)at *http://dms.dot.gov* , and the DMS directed the commenters to the Federal Document Management System
(FDMS)at *http://regulations.gov* . The commenter believes this discouraged comments on the NPRM and may have reduced or prevented comments. We disagree with withdrawing the NPRM. The common design of all of these airplanes that justifies the need for further AD action is the internal welds, which require exhaust system disassembly to adequately inspect. Service data also shows that the exhaust system should be inspected at 50-hour TIS intervals or 12-month intervals, whichever occurs first. This is based on failures occurring between 50 hours TIS and the current 100-hour TIS interval required by AD 76-23-03 R1. Because all but 38 airplanes were built before 1985, the potential for more exhaust system failures exists if further AD action is not taken because the airplanes will be approaching 40 years of service with many having the original factory-installed exhaust system. Repair or replacement of the exhaust system would only be required by the AD if cracks or leaks were found. The FAA agrees that the Model 17-31ATC was not part of AD 76-23-03 R1. However, it does have the same P-Lead configuration and should be included in the AD. Inadvertently referencing this model in AD 76-23-03 R1 does not mean there is no unsafe condition and thus does not justify withdrawing the NPRM. As far as the data in the ACS, the data, no matter how it is analyzed, will show that the airplanes affected by the exhaust system inspection all have internal welds and, as discussed previously, the service data also shows that the exhaust system should be inspected at 50-hour TIS intervals or 12-month intervals, whichever occurs first. This is based on failures occurring between 50 hours TIS and the current 100-hour TIS interval required by AD 76-23-03 R1. And as discussed above, a large majority of the airplanes will be approaching 40 years of service with many having the original factory-installed exhaust system. The FAA agrees that there were issues with the DMS and FDMS. The NPRM was issued when the electronic docket was DMS, but during the comment period the FAA transitioned to the FDMS as mandated by Congress that all federal agencies begin using the FDMS. However, posting of comments was on DMS for part of the comment period and on FDMS for the other. All DMS comments could be reviewed on both the DMS and FDMS. All comments are currently housed in FDMS, and they are extensive. We evaluated all comments. Because there were comments posted in both DMS and FDMS, we believe that the public had adequate time and methods to comment on the NPRM. We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on these comments. Comment Issue No. 7: Exclude From the Inspection Portion of the AD Those Airplanes With Exhaust Systems Modified With Parts Equivalent to Those in Bellanca Service Letter B-110 Dave Taylor states that those airplanes that incorporate exhaust systems modified with replacement parts that are equivalent to those in Bellanca/AALC Service Letter B-110 should not be affected by the exhaust system inspection portion of the AD. The commenter goes on to state that the AD is too burdensome for owners and micromanages the risk that should be placed on airplane owners since the exhaust systems are already inspected on an annual basis through normal maintenance practices. We agree that those airplanes that incorporate exhaust systems modified with replacement parts that are equivalent to those in Bellanca/AALC Service Letter B-110 should be exempt from the exhaust system inspection portion of the AD. Any owner/operator who believes he/she has such parts can apply to the FAA for an AMOC following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and the AD. As far as the AD being too burdensome on airplane owners when the exhaust system is inspected annually, we disagree because the service history shows that the current maintenance procedures and AD 76-23-03 R1 are not fully detecting the cracks and leaks before failure. Service difficulty information, factory Service Alerts, or other recommendations are vehicles to communicate information, but they are not required by law. An AD is a method the FAA has to require actions on all airplanes to address a known unsafe condition. We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this comment. Comment Issue No. 8: Revise the AD Instead of Supersede the AD Ronald J. Quillin proposes that the FAA revise the existing AD 76-23-03 R1 to the R2 level rather than supersede it and give it an entirely new AD number. The commenter states that this would be less confusing since AD 76-23-03 R1 already requires inspection techniques for the detection and correction of cracks in the exhaust system of affected models. Since the NPRM provides additional inspection techniques and introduces the P-Lead rerouting, we must supersede the AD because it requires additional actions on the public. Paragraph 33, page 27, of the *Airworthiness Directives Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1A (FAA-AIR-M-8040.1), dated January 23, 2007* , includes the following: “if the new AD imposes new requirements, it must be issued as a supersedure.” We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this comment. Comment Issue No. 9: Revise the Cost of Compliance To Adequately Show the Number of Airplanes on the U.S. Registry Ronald J. Quillin states that the number of airplanes affected by both the inspection and P-Lead rerouting requirements are incorrect. The commenter states that, according to his research, there are 1,041 airplanes on the U.S. registry that would be affected by the AD; and that 921 airplanes on the U.S. registry would be affected by the exhaust system inspections and 854 airplanes in the U.S. registry would be affected by the P-Lead rerouting. The commenter states that this would downwardly affect the total cost on the fleet. We agree. We based our numbers on production airplanes. We will revise the Costs of Compliance section to reflect the numbers provided in the comment. Conclusion We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for the change in the Costs of Compliance section and minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections: • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 1,041 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the inspection of the exhaust system affects 921 airplanes with the following costs: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 N/A $320 $294,720 We estimate the P-Lead rerouting affects 854 airplanes with the following costs: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 $500 $820 $700,280 We estimate the following costs to replace the exhaust system based on the results of the inspection. The estimate is based on updating the entire exhaust system to the current production exhaust system. This AD allows other means to do the required repairs/replacement, which could cost less. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair/replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 8 work-hours × $80 per hour = $640 $4,000 $4,640 The estimated costs represented in the above actions include the costs associated with AD 76-23-03 R1 and the costs of this AD. The added cost impact this AD imposes upon an owner/operator over that already required by AD 76-23-03 R1 is a more detailed inspection (which requires more work-hours to do) and the P-Lead rerouting on certain models. Authority for this Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD)76-23-03 R1, Amendment 39-5454, and adding the following new AD: **2008-05-11 Alexandria Aircraft, LLC:** Amendment 39-15405; Docket No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD. Effective Date
(a)This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 76-23-03 R1, Amendment 39-5454. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Model Serial Nos. 17-30 All serial numbers. 17-30A 30263 through 301030. 17-31 All serial numbers. 17-31A All serial numbers. 17-31ATC All serial numbers. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from several accidents caused by exhaust system failures. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the exhaust system, which could result in heat damage to magneto electrical wiring and smoke in the cockpit. This failure could lead to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)For aircraft models and serial numbers listed below, inspect the exhaust system for cracks or other defects such as excessive wear:
(i)Model 17-30, all serial numbers;
(ii)Model 17-30A, serial numbers 30263 through 301030;
(iii)Model 17-31, all serial numbers; and
(iv)Model 17-31A, all serial numbers. Initially within the next 12 months after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of this AD) or within 25 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first. Then repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months or 50 hours TIS, whichever occurs first. Accomplishment of the actions in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD terminates the recurring inspections required in this paragraph for the replaced/reconditioned exhaust system (left and/or right side). Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007.
(2)Repair or replace the exhaust system using any of the opti ons listed below:
(i)Option #1—replace the entire defective left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) with new parts as specified in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007;
(ii)Option #2—replace the entire defective left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) with parts reconditioned to the new parts as specified in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007; or
(iii)Option #3—recondition or repair the defective left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) to their original configuration using FAA-approved methods and materials. Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where a crack or other defect is found. The actions in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD terminate the recurring inspections required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD for the replaced/reconditioned exhaust system (left and/or right side). Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007.
(3)For aircraft models and serial numbers listed below that do not have Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Kit 1067: Rerouting Right Magneto “P” Lead installed, reroute the magneto “P” leads:
(i)Model 17-30A, serial numbers 30263 through 30998;
(ii)Model 17-31A, all serial numbers; and
(iii)Model 17-31ATC, all serial numbers. Within the next 12 months after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of this AD) or within 100 hours TIS after April 8, 2008 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first. Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Kit 1072 instructions located on drawing SK 1072, dated April 2, 2007, as referenced in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft 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: Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-118C, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; phone:
(847)294-7870; fax:
(847)294-7834. 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
(g)You must use Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007; and Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Kit 1072 instructions located on drawing SK 1072, dated April 2, 2007, as referenced in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 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 Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN 56308; phone:
(320)763-4088; fax:
(320)763-4095; Internet: *http://www.bellanca-aircraft.com* .
(3)You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202)741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 25, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-3899 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 30596; Amdt. No. 3259] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding of new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports. DATES: This rule is effective March 4, 2008. The compliance date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 4, 2008. ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows: *For Examination—* 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; 3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or, 4. 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* . *Availability* —All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit *nfdc.faa.gov* to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from: 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or 2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone:
(405)954-4164. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the **Federal Register** expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number. The Rule This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs. The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in an FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. Conclusion The FAA has determined that this 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97 Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air). Issued in Washington, DC, on Febuary 22, 2008. James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows: PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722. 2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended] By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows: * * * Effective Upon Publication FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 02/14/08 KY DANVILLE STUART POWELL FIELD 8/4747 LOC/DME RWY 30, AMDT 1. 02/15/08 NY NEW YORK LA GUARDIA 8/5114 RNAV
(GPS)RWY 13, ORIG. 02/15/08 PA PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA INTL 8/5119 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 27R, AMDT 10A. 02/15/08 PA PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA INTL 8/5120 ILS OR LOC RWY 9L, AMDT 4B. 02/15/08 SD LEMMON LEMMON MUNI 8/5106 GPS RWY 29, ORIG. 01/11/08 AK JUNEAU JUNEAU INTL 8/0472 LDA X RWY 8, AMDT 11A. 02/07/08 MN ROCHESTER ROCHESTER INTERNATIONAL 8/3803 ILS OR LOC RWY 31, AMDT 21. 02/07/08 MN ROCHESTER ROCHESTER INTERNATIONAL 8/3804 ILS OR LOC RWY 13, AMDT 7. [FR Doc. E8-4022 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0534; FRL-8536-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC and NO X RACT Determinations for Merck and Co., Inc. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania or the Commonwealth). This revision establishes and requires reasonably available control technology
(RACT)for a major source of volatile organic compound
(VOC)and nitrogen oxide (NO <sup>X</sup> ) pursuant to the Pennsylvania's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. The VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> major source is Merck and Co., Inc. (Merck) located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0534. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. 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 *http://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 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,
(215)814-2182, or by e-mail at *quinto.rose@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On January 4, 2008 (73 FR 836), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth. The NPR proposed approval of the VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT determinations for Merck. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on June 13, 2007. II. Summary of SIP Revision Merck is a chemical process facility and is a major source of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> emissions located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth's submittal consists of an operating permit (OP-49-0007B) that imposes VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT requirements for Merck. PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to Merck. In accordance with its SIP-approved generic RACT rule, the Commonwealth has also imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on Merck sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations. Other requirements to the VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT determinations and 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. III. Final Action EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP on June 13, 2007. The SIP revisions establish and require VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT pursuant to the Commonwealth's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations for Merck and Co., Inc. (OP-49-0007B) located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. IV. 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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules:
(1)Rules of particular applicability;
(2)rules relating to agency management or personnel; and
(3)rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source-specific requirements for Merck. 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 *May 5, 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, approving the VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> RACT determinations for Merck and Co., Inc. located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 21, 2008. 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 NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding an entry for Merck and Co., Inc. at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.
(d)* * *
(1)* * * Name of source County Permit No. State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 citation * * * * * * * Merck and Co., Inc Northumberland OP-49-0007B 05/16/01 03/04/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] 52.2020(d)(1)(v) [FR Doc. E8-4038 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1180; FRL-8535-9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Iowa to demonstrate that the state meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA and is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP. In 1997, EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS. A revision to Iowa's SIP detailing how the state plans to ensure that the revised ozone standard is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Iowa was submitted on June 15, 2007. The submittal addressed all the elements of the October 2, 2007, guidance issued by the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards with regard to infrastructure SIPs. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 5, 2008, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 3, 2008. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1180, by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *Hamilton.heather@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1180. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at
(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *hamilton.heather@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions: What is a Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)SIP? What elements are required under Section 110(a)(1) and (2)? How has the state addressed the elements of the Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)“infrastructure” provisions? What action is EPA taking? What is a Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)SIP? Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)of the CAA requires, in part, that states submit to EPA plans to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require states to address basic SIP requirements including emission inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)are to be submitted by States within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. These SIPs are commonly called infrastructure SIPs. In 1997, EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS. Intervening litigation over the 1997 standards caused a delay in SIP submittals. The State of Iowa's infrastructure SIP was received by EPA Region 7 on June 15, 2007, and the SIP was determined to be complete on November 16, 2007. What elements are required under Section 110(a)(1) and (2)? On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance for addressing SIP “infrastructure” elements required under Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)for the 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. The 14 elements required to be addressed are as follows:
(1)Emission limits and other control measures;
(2)ambient air quality monitoring/data system;
(3)program for enforcement of control measures;
(4)interstate transport;
(5)adequate resources;
(6)stationary source monitoring system;
(7)emergency power;
(8)future SIP revisions;
(9)consultation with government officials;
(10)public notification;
(11)prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)and visibility protection;
(12)air quality and monitoring data;
(13)permitting fees, and
(14)consultation/participation by affected local entities. How has the state addressed the elements of the Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)“infrastructure” provisions? Iowa Department of Natural Resources’
(IDNR)SIP submittal addresses the provisions of Section 110(a)(1) and
(2)as described below. *Emission limits and other control measures:* Iowa provided an overview of the provisions of the Iowa Code (the state enabling statute) and the Iowa Administrative Code relevant to air quality control regulations. Section 455B.133 of the Iowa Code generally authorizes the Environmental Protection Commission to adopt rules for the control of air pollution, including those necessary to obtain EPA approval under Section 110 of the CAA. The submittal also includes references to rules adopted by Iowa to control air pollution, including ozone precursors. EPA believes these provisions are adequate to protect the 8-hour ozone standard in the state. *Ambient air quality monitoring/data system:* IDNR submitted information with regard to the organization and structure of the monitoring program that includes the local air quality programs and the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory. These entities collect air monitoring data, quality assure the results and report the data. The submittal includes maps indicating Iowa's ozone monitor locations and design values for 2001-2003, 2002-2004, and 2003-2005. In addition, ozone summary reports from the Air Quality System from 1998-2006 is included as well as a table of counties in Iowa and their designations which are all unclassifiable/attainment. *Program for enforcement of control measures including review of proposed new sources:* IDNR's SIP submittal includes a description of the compliance activities of the state's regional field offices and the two local agencies (Linn and Polk Counties). It also includes a description of the state statutory authority to enforce regulations relating to attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard. The SIP submittal also describes how the state's construction permits program reviews proposed new major and minor sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)and nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) for compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. *Interstate transport:* Iowa included its SIP revision addressing the interstate transport provisions in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as an attachment to the infrastructure SIP. EPA approved the transport SIP for Iowa on March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10380). Therefore, the infrastructure SIP rulemaking covered by today's action does not include the transport SIP. *Adequate resources:* IDNR's submittal discusses “Program Development” which is the group within IDNR responsible for adopting air quality rules, revising SIPs, developing and tracking the budget, establishing the Title V fees, and other planning needs. Detailed information with regard to rule development is included as an appendix to the submittal. The Program Development section also coordinates agreements with local air pollution control programs (Linn and Polk Counties), and works closely with the Small Business Environmental Liaison. *Stationary source monitoring system:* The SIP submission describes how the major source and minor source emission inventory programs collect emission data throughout the state and ensure the quality of data. These programs generate data for ozone precursors (VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> ) and summarize emissions from point, area, mobile, and biogenic (natural) sources. IDNR uses this data to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. *Emergency power:* IDNR provided an overview of the Iowa Administrative Code and refers to the chapter that identifies air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies. The episode criteria specified in this chapter for ozone are based on a 1-hour average ozone level at a monitoring site. These criteria have previously been approved by EPA as adequate to address ozone emergency episodes. *Future SIP revisions:* As previously discussed, IDNR's Program Development section is the area of IDNR responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to protect the NAAQS. Iowa has the ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions. Detailed information with regard to rule development is included as an appendix to the SIP submittal. *Consultation with government officials:* The submission describes how the Program Development section is responsible for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. *Public notification:* The state's emergency episode provisions, discussed above, provide for notification to the public when the NAAQS, including the ozone NAAQS, are exceeded. *PSD and visibility protection:* This element is addressed in an appendix to the submittal which addresses the requirements of the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP that was approved in the **Federal Register** on March 8, 2007. In that submission, Iowa demonstrated its authority to regulate new and modified sources of ozone precursors (VOCs and NO <sup>X</sup> ) to assist in the protection of air quality in Iowa and in other states. *Air quality and modeling/data:* Iowa has authority pursuant to Section 455B.133 to conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. Iowa's submission also shows that ambient ozone monitoring is used, in conjunction with pre- and post-construction ambient air monitoring, to track local and regional scale changes in ozone concentrations. *Permitting fees:* The SIP revision addresses the review of construction permits as previously discussed. Permitting fees are collected through the state's Title V fees program. *Consultation/participation by affected local entities:* The Program Development section coordinates with local governments affected by the SIP. Iowa's submission also includes a description of the public participation process for SIP development as described previously. What action is EPA taking? As described above, IDNR has addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and
(2)SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance to ensure that the revised ozone standard is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Iowa. It should be noted that Iowa is currently in attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are processing this action as a direct final action because we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 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 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 standard, 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 state 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 state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state 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.* ). 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** . 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by *May 5, 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 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: February 15, 2008. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 Q—Iowa 2. In § 52.820 table
(e)is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read as follows: § 52.820 Identification of plan.
(e)* * * EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * *
(38)CAA 110(a)(1) and (2)—Ozone Infrastructure SIP Statewide 6/15/07 3/04/08 [ *insert FR page number where the document begins* ] [FR Doc. E8-4042 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0606; FRL-8536-5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Ozone Nonattainment Area (or also referred to here as the Allentown Area, or simply the Area) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area is composed of Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties. EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request for the Allentown Area. In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for the Allentown Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for the Allentown Area, which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on April 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0606. 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 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,
(215)814-2176, or by e-mail at *rehn.brian@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On January 7, 2008 (73 FR 1162), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revisions for the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area that provide for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. The NPR also proposed approval of a 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Area. The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on June 26, 2007, with technical correction SIP revision concerning emissions inventory data submitted on August 9, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revisions, and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions, are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23591, April 30, 2004). *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in *South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.* v. *EPA* , Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations:
(1)Nonattainment area New Source Review
(NSR)requirements based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification;
(2)Section 185 penalty fees for the 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and
(3)measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain NAAQS. In addition, the June 8 decision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the continued use of the 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified the 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-backsliding purposes. For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in the light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. II. Final Action EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 2002 base year emissions inventory SIP revisions because they satisfy the requirements for approval. EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on June 26, 2007 and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area submitted on June 26, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its redesignation request. In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on June 26, 2007 (as well as a technical correction SIP including omitted emissions inventory information submitted on August 9, 2007) as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for nitrogen oxides (NO <sup>X</sup> ) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC)in the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations. There are two separate metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs)responsible for transportation planning within the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area. They are the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study MPO (for Lehigh and Northampton Counties), and the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance (for Carbon County). The adequate and approved MVEBs for each MPO within the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area are provided in the following tables: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Lehigh Valley Transportation Study MPO (Covering the Lehigh and Northampton Counties Portion of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area) (2009 & 2018) [In tons per summer day (TPSD)] Budget year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> 2009 20.6 28.9 2018 12.4 12.4 Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance MPO (Covering the Carbon County Portion of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area) (2009 & 2018) [In tons per summer day (TPSD)] Budget year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> 2009 3.4 5.9 2018 2.3 3.0 The Allentown Area is subject to the CAA's requirement for the basic nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment. 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. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. 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 final 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). Because this action affects the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, 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. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. 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 May 5, 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, approving the redesignation of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: February 21, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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 NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table to read as follows: § 52.2020 Identification of plan.
(e)* * *
(1)* * * Name of non- regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation * * * * * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Area: Carbon, Lehigh, and Northampton, Counties 06/26/07, 08/9/07 03/04/08 [Insert page number where the document begins] Technical correction dated 08/9/07 addresses omitted emissions inventory information from 06/26/07 submittals. PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* 4. In § 81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA, Carbon County, Lehigh County, Northampton County, to read as follows: § 81.339 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania—Ozone (8-Hour Standard) Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Category/ classification Date 1 Type * * * * * * * Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA: Carbon County Lehigh County Northampton County 04/03/08 Attainment. * * * * * * * a Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted. 1 This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. [FR Doc. E8-4029 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0324; EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0476; EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0344; FRL-8536-6 ] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to Attainment and Approval of the Areas' Maintenance Plans and 2002 Base-Year Inventories; Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the preamble language of the final rules pertaining to EPA's approval of the redesignation of Erie, Youngstown, and Cambria 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas to attainment, maintenance plans, and 2002 base year inventories submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. DATES: *Effective Date:* March 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,
(215)814-2182 or by e-mail at *quinto.rose@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever “we” or “our” are used we mean EPA. On January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2162), we published a final rule correcting final rules for Erie and Youngstown Areas. On August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41905), we published a final rulemaking action announcing our approval and promulgation of Pennsylvania's redesignation of the Cambria 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment and approval of the associated maintenance plan and 2002 base year inventory. In these documents, EPA inadvertently printed the incorrect categories of volatile organic compound
(VOC)and nitrogen oxide (NO <sup>X</sup> ) in a table entitled “Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs).” This action corrects the tables in the final rulemaking actions correcting the categories of VOC and NO <sup>X</sup> for the MVEBs for Erie, Youngstown, and Cambria Areas. Corrections
(1)Erie County, Pennsylvania Ozone Nonattainment Area (Erie Area). In rule document E8-277, on page 2162, the table is corrected as follows: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day
(TPD)Budget year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> 2009 6.9 16.1 2018 4.5 7.3
(2)Mercer County Portion of the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA Ozone Nonattainment Area (Youngstown Area). In rule document E8-277, on page 2163, the table is corrected as follows: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day
(TPD)Budget year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> 2009 4.5 11.6 2018 3.0 5.3
(3)Johnstown (Cambria County) Ozone Nonattainment Area (Cambria Area). In rule document E7-14745, on page 41905, the table is corrected as follows: Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day
(TPD)Budget year VOC NO <sup>X</sup> 2009 3.8 5.6 2018 2.3 2.7 Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because this rule is not substantive and imposes no regulatory requirements, but merely corrects a citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore 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)). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does 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), nor will it 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 governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; 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. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). 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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of March 4, 2008. 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.** These corrections to the tables on the MVEBs for Erie, Youngstown, and Cambria, Pennsylvania are not “major rules” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Dated: February 21, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III. [FR Doc. E8-4036 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION 47 CFR PART 0 [DA 08-307] Freedom of Information Act AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission is modifying a section of the Commission's rules that implement the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)Fee Schedule. This modification pertains to the charge for recovery of the full, allowable direct costs of searching for and reviewing records requested under the FOIA and the Commission's rules, unless such fees are restricted or waived. The fees are being revised to correspond to modifications in the rate of pay approved by Congress. DATES: Effective March 4, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Shoko B. Hair, Freedom of Information Act Public Liaison, Office of Performance Evaluation and Records Management, Room 1-A827, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554,
(202)418-1379 or via Internet at *shoko.hair@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Communications Commission is modifying § 0.467(a) of the Commission's rules. This rule pertains to the charges for searching and reviewing records requested under the FOIA. The FOIA requires federal agencies to establish a schedule of fees for the processing of requests for agency records in accordance with fee guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In 1987, OMB issued its Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines. However, because the FOIA requires that each agency's fees be based upon its direct costs of providing FOIA services, OMB did not provide a unitary, government-wide schedule of fees. The Commission based its FOIA Fee Schedule on the grade level of the employee who processes the request. Thus, the Fee Schedule was computed at a Step 5 of each grade level based on the General Schedule effective January 1987 (including 20 percent for personnel benefits). The Commission's rules provide that the Fee Schedule will be modified periodically to correspond with modifications in the rate of pay approved by Congress. *See* 47 CFR 0.467(a)(1) note. In an Order adopted on February 21, 2008 and released on February 29, 2008 (DA 08-307), the Managing Director revised the schedule of fees set forth in 47 CFR 0.467 for the recovery of the full, allowable direct costs of searching for and reviewing agency records requested pursuant to the FOIA and the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.460 and 0.461. The revisions correspond to modifications in the rate of pay, which was approved by Congress. These modifications to the Fee Schedule do not require notice and comment because they merely update the Fee Schedule to correspond to modifications in rates of pay, as required under the current rules. The Commission will not distribute copies of this Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the rules are a matter of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority contained in § 0.231(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.231 (b), *it is hereby ordered,* that, effective on March 4, 2008, the Fee Schedule contained in § 0.467 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.467, is amended, as described herein. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0 Freedom of information. Federal Communications Commission. Anthony J. Dale, Managing Director. Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 0 as follows: PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 0.467 is amended by revising the table following paragraph (a)(1) and its note, and by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: § 0.467 Search and review fees. (a)(1) * * * Grade Hourly fee GS-1 $13.43 GS-2 14.62 GS-3 16.48 GS-4 18.49 GS-5 20.69 GS-6 23.06 GS-7 25.63 GS-8 28.38 GS-9 31.36 GS-10 34.52 GS-11 37.93 GS-12 45.47 GS-13 54.06 GS-14 63.89 GS-15 75.14 Note: These fees will be modified periodically to correspond with modifications in the rate of pay approved by Congress.
(2)The fees in paragraph (a)(1) of this section were computed at Step 5 of each grade level based on the General Schedule effective January 2008 and include 20 percent for personnel benefits. [FR Doc. E8-4129 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 070213033-7033-01] RIN 0648-XF95 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (< 18.3 meters (m)) length overall
(LOA)using pot or hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to allow the A season apportionment of the 2008 total allowable catch
(TAC)of Pacific cod to be harvested. DATES: Effective February 28, 2008, through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The A season apportionment of the 2008 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 1,281 metric tons
(mt)as established by the 2008 and 2009 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (73 FR 10160, February 26, 2008), for the period 1200 hrs, A.l.t., January 1, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., April 30, 2008. See § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A), § 679.20(c)(3)(iii), and § 679.20(c)(5). The Acting Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 1,200 mt of the A season apportionment of the 2008 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(1). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A), NMFS apportions 1,200 mt of Pacific cod from the A season jig gear apportionment to catcher vessels < 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear. The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (73 FR 10160, February 26, 2008) are revised as follows: 81 mt to the A season apportionment for vessels using jig gear and 4,233 mt to catcher vessels < 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from jig vessels to catcher vessels < 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot or hook-and-line gear. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 25, 2008. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: February 27, 2008. James P. Burgess Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 08-931 Filed 2-28-08; 1:48 pm]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
29 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 786
  • 7 CFR 1400
  • Pub. L. 110-161
  • 40 CFR 1502.4
  • 7 CFR 799
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)
  • Pub. L. 110-28
  • 7 CFR 718
  • 7 CFR 12
  • 7 CFR 795.17
  • 7 CFR 707
  • 7 CFR 792
  • 7 CFR 1404
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 14 CFR 97
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 472 F.3d 882
  • 40 CFR 81
  • 47 CFR 0
  • 47 CFR 0.467(a)(1)
  • 47 CFR 0.467
  • 47 CFR 0.460
  • 47 CFR 0.231
  • 48 Stat. 1068
  • 50 CFR 679
  • 50 CFR 600
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Stat.Public Law 110–80
U.S.C.§ 1961
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
F. App'x472 F.3d 882
Cite7 CFR 786
Cite7 CFR 1400
Cites 52 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.