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 · 2008-03-13 · Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking

58,718 words·~267 min read·/register/2008/03/13/08-1017

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 50 Thursday, March 13, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-TP-0013] RIN 1904-AB72 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE)is proposing amendments to its test procedures for fluorescent and incandescent lamps, which lamp manufacturers are required to use to certify compliance with energy conservation standards mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Specifically, these amendments update the citations and references to the most recent version of the industry standards currently referenced in DOE's test procedures, as well as make a small number of technical modifications. DOE notes that this notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR)is being issued concurrently with an energy conservation standards advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) on general service fluorescent lamps
(GSFL)and incandescent reflector lamps (IRL). The energy conservation standards ANOPR starts the process for evaluating the existing standards for certain GSFL and IRL to determine whether higher standard levels would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy. The ANOPR also discusses whether the scope of standards should be expanded to cover additional GSFL. In addition, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) extended energy conservation standards coverage to general service incandescent lamps (GSIL). Accordingly, this notice also proposes other amendments to DOE's test procedures for fluorescent and incandescent lamps in order to provide appropriate methods to test these additional lamps. DOE intends to use these amendments to the fluorescent lamp test procedure (with modifications possible based upon agency review of public comments), if it adopts standards for the additional lamps. DATES: DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC that began on March 10, 2008. The agenda for the public meeting covered both this test procedure rulemaking and the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking for these lighting products. DOE began accepting comments, data, and information regarding the NOPR at the public meeting, and will continue to accept comments until no later than May 27, 2008. See Section IV, “Public Participation,” of this NOPR for details. ADDRESSES: The public meeting was held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Any comments submitted must identify the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps and General Service Incandescent Lamps, and provide the docket number EERE-2007-BT-TP-0013 and/or Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)1904-AB72. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *Lamps_Test_Procedure@ee.doe.gov* . Include the docket number EERE-2007-BT-TP-0013 and/or RIN 1904-AB72 in the subject line of the message. • *Postal Mail:* Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper original. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202)586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see Section IV, “Public Participation,” of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024,
(202)586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202)586-2945 for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Graves, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202)586-1851. E-mail: *Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov* . Ms. Francine Pinto or Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202)586-9507. E-mail: *Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov* or *Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov* . For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202)586-2945. E-mail: *Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Summary of the Proposal A. Updates to Standards Incorporated by Reference B. Technical Amendments C. Amendments Related to Testing of Potentially Added Coverage D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption III. Discussion A. Updates to Test Procedure References 1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps and General Service Incandescent Lamps 3. Medium-Based Compact Fluorescent Lamps 4. General Information Standards B. High-Frequency Fluorescent Ballast Testing C. Calculation of Fluorescent Lamp Efficacy D. Measurement and Calculation of Correlated Color Temperature E. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Basic Model F. Reference Ballast Settings for Added Fluorescent Lamp Coverage 1. 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps 2. 2-Foot U-shaped Lamps 3. 8-Foot Slimline Lamps 4. 8-Foot High Output Lamps 5. 8-Foot Very High Output Lamps 6. T5 Fluorescent Lamps G. Test Procedures for Added General Service Incandescent Lamp Coverage H. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption IV. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 1. Test Procedure Reference Updates 2. High-frequency Fluorescent Ballast Testing 3. Calculation of Fluorescent Lamp Efficacy 4. Measurement and Calculation of Correlated Color Temperature 5. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Basic Model 6. Reference Ballast Settings for Added Fluorescent Lamp Coverage 7. Additions to the General Service Incandescent Lamp Test Procedure 8. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption V. Regulatory Review A. Executive Order 12866 B. National Environmental Policy Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Paperwork Reduction Act E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 F. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 G. Executive Order 13132 H. Executive Order 12988 I. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 J. Executive Order 13211 K. Executive Order 12630 L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Background Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 *et seq.* ; EPCA) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” The consumer and commercial products currently subject to this program (hereinafter referred to as “covered products”) include GSFL, IRL, and GSIL. Manufacturers of covered products are required to use the relevant DOE test procedures to certify compliance with the energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA. The statutory provisions of particular relevance to the present rulemaking are discussed immediately below. Under section 323(b) of EPCA, DOE is authorized to amend or establish new test procedures as appropriate for each of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) EPCA states that “[a]ny test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary [of Energy], and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, EPCA states that “* * * the Secretary shall determine, in the rulemaking carried out with respect to prescribing such procedure, to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency, measured energy use, or measured water use of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) Of particular relevance to the present rulemaking, section 323(b)(6) of EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to prescribe test procedures for fluorescent lamps and IRL to which energy conservation standards are applicable, taking into consideration the applicable standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) or American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(6)) The applicable test procedures appear at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)430, Subpart B, Appendix R (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average Lamp Efficiency
(LE)and Color Rendering Index
(CRI)of Electric Lamps”). Furthermore, section 325(i)(5) of EPCA directs the Secretary to consider whether the standards in effect for fluorescent lamps and incandescent lamps should be amended so that they would be applicable to additional GSFL, and, if so, to adopt standards for such lamps. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) DOE is addressing these requirements concurrently in a separate energy conservation standard rulemaking for which an ANOPR is published in today's **Federal Register** . 1 For those lamps being considered for coverage and for which DOE currently does not have test procedures, DOE is proposing test procedures for these products in this NOPR. 1 Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps; Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0131; RIN 1904-AA92. To address the EPCA requirements for lamps discussed above, DOE undertook a number of rulemaking actions pertaining to test procedures. On September 28, 1994, DOE issued an Interim Final Rule on Test Procedures for Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps (hereinafter referred to as the September 1994 Interim Final Rule), that established test procedures for GSFL, medium-based compact fluorescent lamps, and GSIL. 59 FR 49468 (September 28, 1994) (establishing 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R). The test procedures incorporated by reference in the September 1994 Interim Final Rule are as follows: ANSI Standards 2 2 The ANSI standards listed may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. Telephone:
(212)642-4900. • C78.1-1991, “Fluorescent Lamps—Rapid-Start Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics”; • C78.2-1991, “Fluorescent Lamps—Preheat-Start Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics”; • C78.3-1991, “Fluorescent Lamps—Instant-Start and Cold-Cathode Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics”; • C78.375-1991, “Fluorescent Lamps—Guide for Electrical Measurements”; and • C82.3-1983, “Reference Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps” International Commission on Illumination 3 3 The CIE standard listed in this paragraph may be obtained from the International Commission on Illumination, CIE Bureau Central, Kegelgasse 27, A-1030, Vienna, Austria. Telephone: +43 1-714 31 87 0. E-mail: *ciecb@cie.co.at* ; Web site: *http://www.cie.co.at/cie/* . • Publication 13.2-1974, corrected reprint 1993, “Method of Measuring and Specifying Color Rendering Properties of Light Sources” IESNA Standards 4 4 The IESNA standards listed may be obtained from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 120 Wall Street, Floor 17, New York, NY 10005-4001. Telephone:
(212)248-5000. • LM-9-1988, “Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps”; • LM-16-1984, “Practical Guide to Colorimetry of Light Sources”; • LM-20-1982, “Approved Method for Photometric Measuring and Reporting Tests on Reflector Type Lamps”; • LM-45-1991, “Approved Method for Electrical and Photometric Measurements of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps”; • LM-58-1983, “Guide to Spectroradiometric Measurements”; and • LM-66-1991, “Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single-Ended Compact Fluorescent Lamps” In addition, the September 1994 Interim Final Rule included the energy conservation standards for GSFL and IRL prescribed in EPCA section 325(i)(1)(A), (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(A)), as well as definitions of terms related to standards and test procedures for lamps, and procedures for manufacturer compliance and certification with the standards. After considering public comments, on May 29, 1997, DOE published a final rule on Test Procedures for Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps (hereinafter referred to as the May 1997 Final Rule) that revised some of the definitions and calculation methods in the September 1994 Interim Final Rule. 62 FR 29221 (May 29, 1997). In addition to (or in some cases in substitution for) those standards referenced above, the May 1997 Final Rule incorporated by reference the following standards: ANSI Standards • C78.21-1989, “Incandescent Lamps—PAR and R Shapes”; and • C79.1-1994, “Nomenclature for Glass Bulbs—Intended for Use with Electric Lamps” IESNA Standards and Publications • LM-16-1993, “Practical Guide to Colorimetry of Light Sources”; • LM-20-1994, “Approved Method for Photometric Testing of Reflector-Type Lamps”; • LM-58-1994, “Guide to Spectroradiometric Measurements”; and • Chapter 6 (Light Sources) of *Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Lighting Handbook, Reference and Application* , 8th Edition, 1993. The May 1997 Final Rule incorporated the IESNA Standard LM-66-1991 in its entirety, but removed the standard's test requirement to use a reference ballast so that an integrally ballasted compact fluorescent lamp can be tested. 62 FR 29221, 29234 (May 29, 1997). To implement recent amendments to EPCA contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) (EPACT 2005), DOE published a final rule in the **Federal Register** (hereinafter referred to as the December 2006 Final Rule), which prescribed test procedures for eleven types of products for which EPACT 2005 identified specific test procedures (including medium screw-based compact fluorescent lamps) on which the Federally-mandated test procedures are to be based. 71 FR 71340 (December 8, 2006). Specifically, the December 2006 Final Rule incorporated test procedures for medium-based compact fluorescent lamps
(CFL)by adopting the August 9, 2001 version of the ENERGY STAR program requirements for CFL (version 2.0). On December 19, 2007, the President signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140), which makes numerous amendments to EPCA and directs DOE to undertake several new rulemakings for appliance energy efficiency standards. EISA 2007 amends energy conservation standards for IRL and provides new energy conservation standards for GSIL. In addition, EISA 2007 provides several definitions related to products covered by this rulemaking. Furthermore, for all covered products, EISA 2007 directs DOE to amend its test procedure to incorporate a measure of standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) II. Summary of the Proposal This NOPR proposes to modify DOE's current test procedures for electric lamps in order to achieve three objectives:
(1)To update a number of lighting industry standards incorporated by reference;
(2)to adopt certain technical changes and clarifications;
(3)to expand the test procedures to accommodate new classes of lamps being considered for coverage under an amended energy conservation standard or additional lamps for which EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards; and
(4)to address the statutory requirement to expand test procedures to incorporate a measure of standby mode and off mode energy consumption. These proposed changes are summarized below. A. Updates to Standards Incorporated by Reference In seeking to implement recent amendments to EPCA, DOE determined that several of the lighting industry standards referenced in 10 CFR part 430 have been superseded by new editions, have been withdrawn, and, in many cases, are no longer commercially available. Today's NOPR discusses the proposed updates to standards applicable to the test procedures for GSFL, IRL, GSIL, and CFL, and it also describes DOE's basis for proposing to update the CFR with the most recent versions of certain industry testing references in its regulations to the most recent versions. DOE requests comments on these proposed revisions, including any impacts associated with migration to the most recent version of standard currently incorporated by reference. Specifically, today's notice proposes the incorporation by reference of the ANSI C78.375-1997, “American National Standard for Fluorescent Lamps—Guide for Electrical Measurements”; ANSI C78.81-2005, “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Double-Capped Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics” and ANSI C78.901-2005, “American National Standard for Electric Lamps—Single-Based Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics”; and ANSI C82.3-2002, “American National Standard for Reference Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps.” These revisions of ANSI standards replace the older standards, C78.375-1991, C78.1-1991, C78.2-1991, C78.3-1991, and C82.3-1983, incorporated by reference in the September 1994 Interim Final Rule. This notice also proposes the incorporation by reference of the IESNA LM-9-1999 and IESNA LM-45-2000 for measuring the electrical and photometric attributes of fluorescent lamps and general service incandescent filament lamps, respectively. These versions of the IESNA standards would replace the older standards, IESNA LM-9-1988 and IESNA LM-45-1991, that were incorporated by reference in the September 1994 Interim Final Rule. Additionally, this notice proposes to remove the reference to IESNA LM-16-1993, which is a guide to the colorimetry of light sources, and IESNA LM-66-1991, which concerns the testing of medium-based compact fluorescent lamps. Both of these standards were incorporated by reference in the May 1997 Final Rule. DOE considers IESNA LM-66 testing standard superseded by the compact fluorescent lamp test method adopted in 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix W (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Medium Base Compact Fluorescent Lamps”) as part of the December 2006 Final Rule. This notice also proposes to incorporate by reference the method for measuring and specifying color rendering properties of light sources, found in the International Commission on Illumination
(CIE)Publication 13.3-1995, which replaces the older publication, CIE Publication No. 13.2-1974 (corrected reprint 1993), incorporated by reference in the September 1994 Interim Final Rule. B. Technical Amendments In addition to incorporation by reference updates, this notice proposes to continue to require that testing of GSFL be based on low-frequency reference ballasts, except for those lamps which can only be tested on high-frequency ballasts. That is to say, where the newly-referenced ANSI standards allow for both low- and high-frequency measurement, DOE proposes to require that manufacturers continue to report on the lamp performance using the low-frequency reference ballast. By maintaining fluorescent lamp testing on low-frequency ballasts when possible, DOE believes that the proposed updates to more current ANSI standards would not alter the measured efficacy of fluorescent lamps. DOE is also proposing to amend certain provisions in its regulations for calculating and reporting lamp efficacy. Specifically, DOE proposes that lamp efficacy for GSFL be rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt rather than the nearest whole number, as it is now. DOE notes that the fluorescent lamp standards established by EPACT 1992 set efficacy requirements that are to the tenths decimal place ( *e.g.* , 75.0 lumens per watt for 4-foot medium bipin lamps). DOE proposes changing the rounding practice for GSFL efficacy measurements to round to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt for two reasons. First, the measured efficacy for the sample of lamps tested would be reported to the same degree of accuracy as the standard prescribed in EPACT 1992. Second, in conducting analyses for the energy conservation standards ANOPR, DOE found that in order to have standard levels for GSFL that are best able to maximize energy savings, it must utilize the tenths decimal place for the ANOPR analysis. Furthermore, DOE's proposed approach would promote consistency with other lamp types already tested ( *e.g.* , lamp efficacy for IRL is rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt). Additionally, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to adopt a test method for the measurement and calculation of correlated color temperature
(CCT)for fluorescent lamps and incandescent lamps. CCT is used as a metric to define “colored fluorescent lamp” in 10 CFR 430.2 and to define “colored incandescent lamp” in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(EE). This proposed amendment supports the energy conservation standards rulemaking ANOPR published in today's **Federal Register** , in which DOE considers establishing separate product classes for fluorescent lamps based on their CCT. Also, in support of this consideration of separate product classes based on CCT, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to revise the definition of “basic model” such that all GSFL that are considered to be the same basic model have similar CCTs. C. Amendments Related to Testing of Potentially Added Coverage DOE is aware that the introduction of new 4-foot medium bipin and 2-foot U-shaped fluorescent lamps into the lighting market has effectively increased the number and types of lamps subject to DOE regulation under the existing definition of “fluorescent lamp.” In addition, DOE is aware that certain 8-foot slimline and 8-foot high output lamps, as well as 8-foot very high output lamps and T5 fluorescent lamps, are not presently part of DOE's scope of coverage. In the energy conservation standards ANOPR published in today's **Federal Register** , DOE discusses its consideration of whether to adopt energy conservation standards for some of these additional fluorescent lamps. In order not to delay the rulemaking process, in this test procedures rulemaking, DOE is proposing to adopt test procedures for all of these additional fluorescent lamps that are under consideration. DOE is also proposing to insert language in the CFR regarding the test procedure for GSIL. As stated earlier, EISA 2007 establishes energy conservation standards for GSIL. Consequently, the several necessary portions of the GSIL test procedure ( *e.g.* , specification of units to be tested and efficacy calculation methods) are not incorporated into DOE's existing test procedure, as these lamp types were not previously regulated. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to include these GSIL test procedure provisions in a manner consistent with the existing IRL test procedure. D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption As stated earlier, EISA 2007 directs DOE to amend its test procedure to incorporate a measure of off mode and standby mode energy consumption, if feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) As discussed in further detail below, DOE believes that off mode and standby mode energy consumption of GSFL, IRL, and GSIL are inapplicable at the current state of the technologies. Because lamp operation in these two modes is not feasible, DOE proposes to not expand the test procedure to incorporate measurement methods for off mode or standby mode energy consumption of GSFL, IRL, and GSIL. III. Discussion A. Updates to Test Procedure References As part of the DOE's rulemaking regarding energy conservation standards for lamps, DOE held a public meeting on June 15, 2006, to present and discuss the *Rulemaking Framework Document for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps* 5 (hereinafter Framework Document). 71 FR 30834 (May 31, 2006) (announcing public meeting and availability of Framework Document). Participants at the public meeting included energy and environmental groups, lamp manufacturers, State energy offices, electric utilities, and lighting consultants and designers. 5 A copy of the Framework Document, “ *Rulemaking Framework Document for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps* ” can be found on DOE's Web site at: *http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/lamps_framework.pdf* . In the Framework Document, DOE stated that it did not intend to update its test procedures in the lamps rulemaking. (Framework Document, No. 1.2 at pp. 8-9) At that time, DOE did not believe an update to the test procedures for lamps was necessary, as no stakeholder or manufacturer had raised this as an issue either directly with DOE or in the context of the certification reports submitted periodically for covered lamps. In Appendix D of the Framework Document, however, DOE did provide a list of the industry standards incorporated by reference in its regulations, as codified in the CFR. In response to the Framework Document, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)commented that several of the methods and standards for test procedures listed in Appendix D of the Framework Document had been withdrawn and were no longer commercially available, while others had been superseded with new editions or updated in accordance with ANSI policy. NEMA urged DOE to update its regulations to use the current editions of the referenced test procedures, arguing that such action is important to minimize the administrative burden on those who conduct the testing. (NEMA, No. 8 at p. 2) 6 GE Consumer and Industrial
(GE)also commented that DOE should update the testing standards incorporated by reference. GE stated that of the eleven standards incorporated by reference, three have been consolidated and superseded; one has been withdrawn; five have been superseded, and only two are still current. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4.5 at p. 30) GE asserted that having DOE regulations reference industry standards that are obsolete, withdrawn, revised, and consolidated makes compliance more problematic for regulated entities. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4.5 at p. 29) 6 A notation in the form “NEMA, No. 8 at p. 2” identifies a written comment that DOE has received and has included in the docket of its energy conservation standards rulemaking for GSFL and IRL (Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0131; RIN number 1904-AA92). This particular notation refers to a comment:
(1)by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association;
(2)in document number 8 in the docket of energy conservation standards rulemaking; and
(3)appearing on page 2. As part of its comments, NEMA prepared a table which listed each of the ANSI Lamp and Ballast Standards, IESNA Test Methods, 7 and CIE Technical Reports and Guides that DOE included in Appendix D of the Framework Document. NEMA then listed the current relevant standard, method, or guide being used by industry today. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3-4) This comment very clearly presented the changes NEMA was requesting to the lighting test procedures incorporated by reference in the CFR. Specifically, NEMA identified the following references as needing revision or deletion:
(1)ANSI C78.1-1991 (“For Fluorescent Lamps—Rapid Start Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics”);
(2)ANSI C78.2-1991 (“For Fluorescent Lamps—Preheat Start Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics”);
(3)ANSI C78.3-1991 (“For Fluorescent Lamps—Instant-Start and Cold-Cathode Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics”);
(4)ANSI C78.375-1991 (“For Fluorescent Lamps—Guide for Electrical Measurements”);
(5)ANSI C82.3-1983 (“Reference Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps”);
(6)IESNA LM-9-88 (“IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps”);
(7)IESNA LM-16-1993 (“IESNA Practical Guide to the Colorimetry of Light Sources”);
(8)IESNA LM-45-1991 (“IES Approved Method for Electrical and Photometric Measurements of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps”); and
(9)the CIE Publication No. 13.2 1974, corrected reprint 1993 (“Method of Measuring and Specifying Color Rendering Properties of Light Sources, ISBN 3 900 734 39 9”). (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2 and pp. 3-4) Finally, NEMA also identified a referenced standard for compact fluorescent lamps, IESNA LM-66-1991 (“Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single Ended Compact Fluorescent Lamps”) which requires updating. NEMA noted that EPACT 2005 established minimum standards for single ended CFL, and the IESNA LM-66 reference needs to be updated as part of this process. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 4) 7 In its table, NEMA also included an IESNA testing standard for medium-based compact fluorescent lamps, which, though not included by DOE in Appendix D of the Framework Document, is incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedures for Electric Lamps. (10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 4.4) In response, DOE has tentatively decided to update several industry standards incorporated by reference in DOE's lighting regulations in order to ensure their availability and to facilitate testing. DOE notes that various industry lighting standards are referenced in its regulations, as codified in 10 CFR 430.2 and 430.22 and 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R. Although references to incorporated industry standards are generally found in the test procedures contained in DOE's regulations, this rulemaking document also addresses other provisions of DOE's lighting regulations where references to the identical standards require updating. Initiating such changes at one time in the context of this test procedure rulemaking is more efficient and promotes consistency across DOE's lighting regulations. However, where it was determined that updating to a more recent version of an incorporated industry standard would effect a significant change in the scope of coverage of the regulation or other compliance requirements ( *e.g.* , changing the definition of “rated wattage” in 10 CFR 430.2), DOE reserved consideration of such updates for the standard-setting ANOPR because it believes that rulemaking to be the appropriate context for making substantive changes to energy conservation standard levels and their scope of coverage. When considering an updated standard, DOE examines each one to ensure that a revision to DOE's regulations would not result in a test procedure that is unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE also examines an updated standard to determine whether the amended test procedure would significantly change the measured lamp efficacy (thereby necessitating amendments to the energy conservation standard itself). Unless otherwise stated, DOE has determined that none of the referenced test procedures is burdensome to conduct, nor would they result in a change in measured energy efficiency. Thus, DOE proposes to update the standards incorporated by reference to the more recent versions recommended by stakeholders. The updated references are discussed in detail below. 1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps NEMA commented that the ANSI C78.1-1991, C78.2-1991, and C78.3-1991 have been collectively superseded by the 2005 edition of ANSI C78.81. These 1991 standards are referenced in DOE's definitions of “cold-temperature fluorescent lamp,” “fluorescent lamp,” and “rated wattage.” (See 10 CFR 430.2) In addition, the test methods and measurements for GSFL incorporate elements of each of these standards. (See 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 4.1.1) Since the time of their incorporation, these industry standards have undergone several rounds of revision. The 1991 standards were consolidated in 2001 as ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901. ANSI C78.81 was later revised in 2003. Both ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 were then revised in 2005. ANSI C78.81-2005, addressing dimensional and electrical characteristics for double-capped fluorescent lamps, combines and is an updated version of ANSI C78.2-1991 (which addresses dimensional and electrical characteristics for preheat start fluorescent lamps), ANSI C78.3-1991 (which addresses dimensional and electrical characteristics for instant start and cold-cathode type fluorescent lamps), and portions of ANSI C78.1-1991 (which addresses dimensional and electrical characteristics for rapid start fluorescent lamps). ANSI C78.901-2005 provides dimensional and electrical characteristics for single-based fluorescent lamps and incorporates specifications for the U-shaped lamps that were previously covered by ANSI C78.1-1991. In a review and comparison of the 1991 and 2005 ANSI standards, DOE found that both ANSI C78.81-2005 and ANSI C78.901-2005 add a requirement that the average wattage not exceed the rated wattage by 5 percent plus 0.5 watts. In the 1991 ANSI standards, the relationship between the average and rated wattage was not defined. The new ANSI standards, with this tolerance on average wattage, would allow a lamp listed in a catalogue as being nominally 32 watts (rated at 32.5 watts in ANSI C78.81) to actually have a power as high as 34.6 watts and still be listed as nominally 32 watts. However, DOE notes that manufacturers do not use the rated wattage when calculating efficacy. Instead, they use the measured (or “average”) wattage, following the steps in DOE's test procedure. Therefore, this new requirement that the average wattage shall not exceed the rated wattage by 5 percent plus 0.5 watts would not change the represented efficacy of lamps tested. In other words, the efficacy represented by a lamp tested under the 1991 ANSI standards and under the 2005 ANSI standards would not differ due to this new tolerance requirement on rated wattage. A noteworthy difference between ANSI C78.1 and ANSI C78.81 is each document's content under Annex A.2, which is referenced in DOE's definition of “rated wattage” 8 (See 10 CFR 430.2). As mentioned earlier, in the context of “rated wattage,” this difference could result in a change in coverage under the energy conservation standards. Specifically, Annex A.2 of ANSI C78.1 indicates that the lamp abbreviation may include either the rated wattage or nominal wattage for a particular lamp. However, Annex A.2 of ANSI C78.81 no longer refers to the rated wattage, specifying that the lamp abbreviation incorporates only the nominal wattage. Although Annex A.2 of ANSI C78.81 does not provide a definition of rated wattage, Clause 11.1 of the standard does identify rated wattage by referring to the rated values in the specific lamp data sheets contained in ANSI C78.81. Because the rated wattage values referred to in Annex A.2 of the outdated ANSI C78.1-1991 are different from those values identified by either Annex A.2 or Clause 11.1 of ANSI 78.81-2005, implementing this reference update in the definition of “rated wattage” (i.e., substituting ANSI C78.1 with ANSI C78.81) would substantively change that definition. Due to the fact that rated wattage is used in the definition of “fluorescent lamps,” updating ANSI C78.1 to ANSI C78.81 would alter the scope of coverage for fluorescent lamps under the applicable DOE regulations (scope may increase or decrease, depending on the nominal and rated wattage of the fluorescent lamp). For this reason, DOE is not proposing to update the relevant incorporation by reference in the definition of “rated wattage” in the context of this test procedure NOPR. Instead, DOE discusses potential revisions to the “rated wattage” definition in the energy conservation standards rulemaking, for which an ANOPR is published in today's **Federal Register** . In the ANOPR, DOE has a section where it discusses scope of coverage, including the updating of the reference from ANSI C78.1 to C78.81 in the definition of “rated wattage.” 8 10 CFR 430.2 defines “rated wattage” as: “Rated wattage, with respect to 4-foot medium bipin T8, T10 or T12 lamps, means:
(1)If the lamp is listed in ANSI C78.1-1991, the nominal wattage of a lamp determined by the lamp designation in Annex A.2 of ANSI C78.1-1991; or
(2)If the lamp is a residential straight-shaped lamp, the wattage a lamp consumes when operated on a reference ballast for which the lamp is designed; or
(3)If the lamp is neither listed in ANSI C78.1-1991 nor a residential straight-shaped lamp, the wattage a lamp consumes when using reference ballast characteristics of 236 volts, 0.43 amps and 439 ohms for T10 or T12 lamps or reference ballast characteristics of 300 volts, 0.265 amps and 910 ohms for T8 lamps.” It is important to note that while DOE is not proposing to update the ANSI C78.1-1991 reference in the definition of “rated wattage” in 10 CFR 430.2, the term “rated wattage” is not used in DOE's fluorescent and incandescent lamp test procedure. Therefore, the updated fluorescent and incandescent lamp test procedure, as proposed in this NOPR, would incorporate all the most up-to-date industry standards and practices. For several covered lamps listed in ANSI C78.1-1991, the updated ANSI C78.81-2005 adds high-frequency reference ballast settings for lamps without cathode heating. Because DOE references ANSI standard C78.1 in the test methods and measurements of GSFL, this additional option for testing may introduce a significant change in the test procedure and change in the measured efficacy. (See 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 4.1.1) Fluorescent lamp operation without cathode heating generally results in a higher measured efficacy than operation with cathode heating. In addition, DOE recognizes that lamp operation on a high-frequency ballast results in significantly different lamp efficacy than lamp operation on a low-frequency ballast. Due to the fact that these lamps can be operated on both low- and high-frequency ballasts, DOE is proposing to require all lamps have their efficacy tested using the low-frequency reference ballasts. This proposal is consistent with the existing test procedure and referenced 1991 ANSI standard and will ensure that all testing will result in consistent lamp efficacy measurements. For those lamps which can only be tested on a high-frequency reference ballast ( *e.g.* , 86-Watt 8-foot T8 high output or T5 fluorescent lamps, though neither are currently covered products), DOE is proposing that manufacturers would test and report their performance using the high-frequency reference ballast settings contained in the updated 2005 ANSI standard. This issue of lamp testing on high-frequency ballasts is discussed in detail in Section III.B of this NOPR. Finally, in 10 CFR 430.2, paragraphs
(3)and
(4)of the definition of “fluorescent lamp” define the scope of coverage for such lamps that are subject to energy efficiency standards by referencing the lamps contained in ANSI C78.1 and ANSI C78.3. In paragraph
(3)of the definition, the scope of “8-foot high output lamps” is limited to those lamps identified in ANSI C78.1-1991. Substituting ANSI C78.1-1991 with ANSI C78.81-2005 in paragraph
(3)would not alter the scope of coverage of 8-foot high output lamps, as no additional lamps of this type are listed in ANSI C78.81. Therefore, DOE proposes in this NOPR to replace the reference to ANSI C78.1-1991 with a reference to ANSI C78.81-2005 in paragraph
(3)of DOE's definition of a “fluorescent lamp.” Similarly, paragraph
(4)of the definition of “fluorescent lamp” defines “8-foot slimline lamps” by referencing ANSI C78.3-1991. The updated ANSI C78.81-2005 provides lamp specification data for one additional fluorescent lamp if the reference to ANSI C78.3 was substituted with the 2005 ANSI standard in paragraph
(4)of the definition. Specifically, ANSI C78.81-2005 provides lamp specification data for a 59-watt, 8-foot, T8, single pin, instant start fluorescent lamp that would fall under the definition of “8-foot slimline lamps.” Thus, if DOE were to update this reference to ANSI C78.3-1991 by substituting it with ANSI C78.81-2005, DOE would be expanding its scope of coverage to additional 8-foot slimline lamps. Therefore, DOE is not proposing in this proposed rule to update the referencing of ANSI C78.3-1991 in paragraph
(4)of the definition of “fluorescent lamp” in this rulemaking proceeding. However, in this test procedure NOPR, DOE is proposing to update all references to ANSI C78.3-1991 appearing in 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R. 9 Today's proposal, if adopted, would ensure that DOE has a test procedure for fluorescent lamps incorporating all the most up-to-date industry standards. DOE is considering the issue of the reference to the outdated ANSI C78.3-1991 in the definition of “fluorescent lamp” (and the associated expansion of coverage) in the energy conservation standard ANOPR for GSFL, IRL, and GSIL published in today's **Federal Register** . 9 By referencing ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 in 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, DOE recognizes that the GSFL test procedure provides testing methods for all GSFL currently regulated by DOE as well as other lamps not included in the scope of coverage of DOE's regulations. For all the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI C78.81-2005 and ANSI C78.901-2005 and to delete the references to ANSI C78.1-1991 in the definition of “cold-temperature fluorescent lamp” and in paragraph
(3)of the definition of “fluorescent lamp” in 10 CFR 430.2. In addition, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ANSI C78.81-2005 and ANSI C78.901-2005. DOE also proposes to delete the references to ANSI C78.1, ANSI C78.2, and ANSI C78.3 in the test methods and measurements of GSFL. (10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 4.1.1) DOE believes that by continuing to require that all lamps be tested on low-frequency ballasts (except those that cannot be), the revisions proposed above would not result in any additional testing burden or significant change in measured lamp efficacy. NEMA commented that ANSI C78.375-1991 has been updated to ANSI C78.375-1997. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) ANSI C78.375-1991, which is incorporated by reference, describes procedures for obtaining electrical measurements for these lamps. (See 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R) DOE reviewed the test procedure and the ANSI updates, and it was found that the 1997 revision provides less restrictive requirements for supply voltage than the 1991 version, and it removes specifications for instrumentation usage and correction determination. These updates are based on changes in technology, and DOE believes that these revisions would not change the measured lamp efficacy. The revised 1997 ANSI standard requires that lamp testing be performed in a draft-free environment and that the test instruments are of true root mean square type. 10 DOE has tentatively concluded that both of these updates would help to reduce errors and produce more consistent, accurate representations of lamp performance, without resulting in any additional testing burden or change in measured lamp efficacies. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the reference to ANSI C78.375-1991 by replacing it with ANSI C78.375-1997 in 10 CFR 430.22 and 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R. 10 These instruments directly calculate the root mean square from the measured waveform, rather than basing the calculation on the assumption that the waveform is sinusoidal. Next, NEMA suggested that DOE amend references to ANSI C82.3-1983, which provides design features and operating characteristics for fluorescent lamp reference ballasts, by replacing it with the latest version of that standard, ANSI C82.3-2002. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) ANSI C82.3-1983 is currently referenced in the test methods and measurements section of the GSFL test procedure (see 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 4.1.1). ANSI C82.3-2002 updates instrument/calibration requirements reflective of the changes over time in the instrumentation used to test lamps. Instrumentation used today no longer requires many of the calibrations and adjustments dictated in the 1983 standard. DOE believes that the revised ANSI standard (ANSI C82.3-2002), though simplifying calibration and adjustment techniques, does not alter the measured efficacies of lamps tested vis-à-vis those reported in ANSI C82.3-1983. In addition, ANSI C82.3-2002 introduces high-frequency ( *i.e.* , 25 kHz) specifications for reference test ballasts. However, as stated above, DOE is proposing to require all lamps to be tested using low-frequency ballasts (except those which can only be tested with high-frequency ballasts). Because all currently covered lamps have corresponding low-frequency ballast specifications provided, DOE concludes that this revision to the ANSI standard does not affect the efficacy measurement for the relevant lamps or introduce any additional testing burden. Therefore, DOE is proposing to replace the reference to ANSI C82.3-1983 with ANSI C82.3-2002 in 10 CFR 430.22 and 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R. Furthermore, NEMA commented that IESNA LM-9-99 is the current version of IESNA LM-9-88, and that the references to LM-9-88 in 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R should be updated to the more recent version of the IESNA standard. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) These two standards describe the procedures for assessing electrical and photometric characteristics of fluorescent lamps. The 1999 version of IESNA LM-9 adds specifications for self-absorption correction when taking light output measurements. Although this addition could raise efficacy by as much as 5 or 10 percent, the degree of this change depends on the integrating-sphere configuration and the laboratory conducting the testing. However, because some laboratories already account for self-absorption in their light output measurements, these added specifications would only affect those laboratories not presently performing this practice. If DOE adopts this revision and concludes that the update does significantly affect measured lamp efficacy, then in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e), DOE would be required to “amend the applicable energy conservation standard during the rulemaking carried out with respect to such test procedure.” In this case, DOE will revise and develop new or amended efficacy standards for fluorescent lamps in its energy conservation standards rulemaking, taking into consideration the updated standard, IESNA LM-9-1999. DOE invites comment on this issue. Another difference between IESNA LM-9-1999 and the earlier version of that standard concerns the electrical settings used during lamp measurements. The updated IESNA standard allows measurements to be taken with the lamp operating and stabilized under one of three conditions:
(1)At the specified input voltage to the reference circuit;
(2)at the rated lamp power; or
(3)at a specified current. In contrast, the 1988 version of the IESNA standard requires that measurements be taken at the input voltage specified by the reference circuit. Though all three measurement techniques are valid methods to test fluorescent lamps, DOE believes that testing under each of the three measurement techniques could result in significantly different efficacies. Therefore, in order to ensure consistent lamp efficacy measurements, DOE proposes to limit the testing of lamps by using one particular method, with the lamp operating and stabilized at the specified input voltage to the reference circuit. By retaining this single method of testing lamps, DOE makes certain that updating to IESNA LM-9-1999 will not change the measured lamp efficacy or cause additional testing burden. Other changes to the revised version standardize methods of testing by providing clearer guidelines. DOE believes that these updates will result in more consistent and accurate efficacy measuring and reporting. Therefore, DOE proposes to update the references to IESNA LM-9 in 10 CFR 430.22 and 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, by substituting the test method in IESNA LM-9-1999, with a limitation that the testing conditions are to be that the lamp must be operating and stabilized at the specified input voltage to the reference circuit. 2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps and General Service Incandescent Lamps NEMA commented that IESNA LM-45-1991 is out of date and has been updated to IESNA LM-45-2000. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3-4) IESNA LM-45-1991, which is incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, describes the procedures to be followed for measurement of the electrical and photometric characteristics of general service incandescent filament lamps. In addition, IESNA LM-20 (the referenced standard regarding the photometric testing of reflector-type lamps) incorporates IESNA LM-45-1991 by reference. DOE's review of these testing standards indicates that revising the test procedure to incorporate IESNA LM-45-2000 by reference would update testing instrumentation specifications, test procedure information, and mechanisms for determining measurement errors. DOE believes that substituting IESNA LM-45-2000 for the version currently incorporated would provide clarification in the test procedure, which would reduce variability without significantly affecting measured lamp efficacy. Specifically, the revised IESNA standard provides a detailed procedure for establishing lamp stabilization. The revised IESNA standard also explains the origin of measurement errors caused by the deviation in system response from the photopic luminous efficacy function (V(λ)) when determining illuminance and total luminous flux. Furthermore, the revised IESNA standard requires a tighter bound of uncertainty measurements for voltage and current. It is DOE's understanding that these modifications could reduce uncertainty and variability in efficacy measurements. DOE believes that the changes are necessary because the previous methodology incorporates measurement techniques that could result in different efficacy values for the same lamp. In addition, DOE believes that testing under an amended test procedure that incorporates the 2000 version of the IESNA standard would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference IESNA LM-45-2000 under 10 CFR 430.22 and 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R. 3. Medium-Based Compact Fluorescent Lamps DOE is proposing to delete references to test procedures for medium-based compact fluorescent lamps from 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, because test procedures conforming with EPACT 2005 were added by the December 2006 Final Rule. Section 323(b)(12)(A) of EPCA, as amended, requires test procedures for medium-based CFL to be based on the August 9, 2001, version of the ENERGY STAR program requirements for CFL (version 2.0). Accordingly, the December 2006 Final Rule incorporated the version 2.0 as DOE's test procedure for CFL. (10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix W) This statutory directive supersedes the testing procedures adopted by the September 1994 Interim Final Rule. Therefore, DOE proposes to delete references to testing medium-based compact fluorescent lamps from 10 CFR 430.22 and 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R. In addition, DOE proposes to reference Appendix W of Subpart B instead of Appendix R of Subpart B in 10 CFR part 430 when indicating the appropriate test procedure for medium base compact fluorescent lamps. 4. General Information Standards NEMA commented that IESNA LM-16-1993, a guide to colorimetry of light sources, has been withdrawn and is commercially unavailable. Accordingly, NEMA requested that this reference be eliminated from DOE's regulations. (NEMA, No. 12 at pp. 3-4) IESNA LM-16-1993, which is referenced in 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, is not a specific test method and does not provide any detail associated with the test procedures contained in Appendix R. IESNA LM-16 provides only educational information and refers to testing standards already referenced by other incorporated ANSI, IESNA, and CIE references. Therefore, DOE is proposing to delete the reference to IESNA LM-16-1993 from Appendix R because it has been withdrawn by industry and is superfluous to DOE's test procedure. Correspondingly, DOE is proposing to delete the reference to IESNA LM-16-1993 from 10 CFR 430.22(b)(2). DOE believes that these amendments would not result in any change in the testing method or measured efficacies of fluorescent or incandescent lamps. In its comments, NEMA urged DOE to incorporate by reference CIE Publication 13.3-1995, which is the updated version of CIE Publication 13.2-1974 (corrected reprint 1993). CIE Publication 13.2 is cited in 10 CFR 430.2, 10 CFR 430.22(b)(3), and 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R. CIE Publication 13.2 is referenced in the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp” (10 CFR 430.2) and in the test methods and measurements of GSFL (10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 4.5.1). 11 CIE Publication 13.2 presents the procedure for measuring and specifying color rendering properties of light sources. Relative to CIE Publication 13.2, data tables have been modified in CIE Publication 13.3 to be representative of current spectroradiometric practices. A smaller interval for the color rendering index
(CRI)is required due to changes in current practices. However, the technical method for determining CRI has not changed from the 1974 edition of the CIE publication. DOE believes the proposed amendments to this document would not significantly impact the measurement of lamp efficacy or add additional testing burden because these changes have already been widely adopted in practice and are now standardized across laboratories. Therefore, DOE is proposing to update the relevant CFR provisions to incorporate by reference CIE Publication 13.3-1995, in place of CIE Publication 13.2-1974 (corrected reprint 1993). 11 CIE Publication 13.2 is also referenced in the DOE definition of “colored incandescent lamp” as developed and codified in the May 1997 Final Rule. 62 FR 29221,29228 (May 29, 1997) However, section 321(a)(1) of EISA 2007 establishes a new definition (superseding DOE's previous definition) that references the updated CIE Publication 13.3. In addition, DOE is also proposing in this notice to delete the reference to TLA Lighting Consultants from 10 CFR 430.22(b)(3), and instead is inserting both an e-mail address and Web site for CIE. DOE is proposing this amendment for the following reasons:
(1)DOE no longer believes it is necessary to list a private company as the source of CIE documents when CIE documents can be purchased online directly from CIE; and
(2)as discussed in 10 CFR 430.22(a)(2), the CIE document and all referenced standards are made publicly available through both the National Archives and Records Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, DC. B. High-Frequency Fluorescent Ballast Testing As discussed in Section III.A above, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI C78.81 and ANSI C78.901 (which replaced ANSI C78.1, ANSI C78.2, and ANSI C78.3) in 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 4.1.1. ANSI C78.81 allows several lamps to be tested on high-frequency ballasts. Philips commented that the same lamp tested on different reference ballasts may have different reported efficacies. (Philips, No. 11 at p. 3) The Philips comment raises a significant point. DOE believes that having a fluorescent lamp efficacy standard which allows manufacturers to determine compliance by using either of two different methods would introduce inconsistencies in the measured efficacies for those products. At this time, while high-frequency testing specifications are available for some lamps, they are not yet available for all of DOE's covered fluorescent lamp types. ANSI C78.81 does provide low-frequency reference ballast specifications for all of DOE's covered fluorescent lamps. Therefore, consistent with the current test procedure, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to require testing of GSFL using low-frequency reference ballasts when possible. If, as discussed in the energy conservation standards ANOPR, DOE were to extend its coverage to certain additional fluorescent lamps for which only high-frequency reference ballast specifications are available, then DOE proposes to require that testing of those lamps would be conducted using the specified high-frequency reference ballast. By continuing to test fluorescent lamps on low-frequency ballasts when possible, DOE ensures consistent and repeatable efficacy measurements. In addition, as this proposal does not represent a divergence from the current testing practices, DOE believes that the proposed test procedure would neither increase testing burden nor alter the measured efficacy of fluorescent lamps. DOE is aware that the fluorescent ballast market is shifting toward high-frequency ( *i.e.* , electronic) ballasts. Therefore, if industry standards are amended in the future so as to provide high-frequency testing specifications for a more comprehensive list of covered lamps, DOE will consider reevaluating its test procedures. In such a case, DOE may propose allowing manufacturers the option of choosing either low-frequency reference balance testing or high-frequency reference ballast testing. DOE notes that if it allows manufacturers to test and represent the efficacy of their lamps using a high-frequency reference ballast, DOE would need to adjust the table of fluorescent lamp efficacy requirements (which currently includes low-frequency ballasts efficacy levels) so as to also include high-frequency ballast efficacy levels, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e). In other words, DOE would scale its efficacy requirements to reflect the performance of a lamp on a low-frequency ballast to that same lamp's performance on a high-frequency ballast. DOE invites stakeholders to comment on this issue. C. Calculation of Fluorescent Lamp Efficacy DOE's current test procedures for fluorescent and incandescent lamps contain an inconsistency between the definition of “lamp efficacy” and the minimum efficacy standards established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-486) (EPACT 1992). Under 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 2.6, lamp efficacy for all lamps is defined as: “the ratio of measured lamp lumen output in to the measured lamp electrical power input in watts, rounded to the nearest whole number, in units of lumens per watt.” Similarly, the GSFL test procedure states that lamp efficacy measurements should be rounded to the nearest lumen per watt (10 CFR 430.23(r)(2)). However, in 10 CFR 430.23(r)(3), lamp efficacy for IRL is defined as the ratio of lumens emitted over watts consumed, rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. DOE believes that accuracy of efficacy measurements is crucial in order to maximize energy savings under DOE regulations. DOE further notes that average lamp efficacy requirements for GSFL, as listed in EPCA, are specified to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(A)) Therefore, DOE is proposing to revise the GSFL test procedure (10 CFR 430.23(r)(2)) and the test procedure definition of “lamp efficacy” (10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R, paragraph 2.6), such that all efficacy measurements for lamps are rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. This proposal is consistent with DOE's approach in the May 1997 Final Rule regarding the rounding practice required for the calculation of IRL efficacy. In the May 1997 Final Rule, DOE stated that IRL lamp efficacy should be rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt in order to retain the significant figures in the EPCA standard for IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(A)) 62 FR 29221, 29234 (May 29, 1997) This proposed revision to the efficacy rounding practice for GSFL does not alter the method of taking test measurements, but only the calculation of lamp efficacy. Therefore, DOE believes that requiring average lamp efficacy measurements of GSFL be rounded to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt would not be unduly burdensome. In sum, DOE believes that these amendments to the test procedure would neither be unduly burdensome to implement nor alter the measured efficacy of covered fluorescent lamps. DOE invites stakeholders to comment on this issue. D. Measurement and Calculation of Correlated Color Temperature DOE uses CCT as a metric to define “colored fluorescent lamp” and “colored incandescent lamp.” 12 In both cases, CCT is used to determine whether a lamp that operates with a particular CCT should be classified as a colored lamp, and therefore not be subject to regulation as a covered product. The existing test procedures for fluorescent and incandescent lamps in the CFR do not provide guidance or methodologies for determining or calculating CCT. In today's **Federal Register** , DOE is publishing an ANOPR for the energy conservation standards rulemaking on GSFL and IRL that takes into consideration CCT. In the energy conservation standards ANOPR, DOE is requesting comment on the development of separate product classes and efficacy standards for fluorescent lamps based on CCT. In order that manufacturers may all use the same reference document for determining their fluorescent lamp CCT values, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference in this proceeding IESNA LM-9-1999, titled “IESNA Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps.” IESNA LM-9-1999 provides a clear and adequate methodology for the measurement and calculation of the CCT of a fluorescent lamp. Under IESNA LM-9-1999, CCT is determined by measuring the spectral power distribution and then calculating the chromaticity coordinates which correspond to a particular CCT. DOE does not believe the adoption of this IESNA standard imposes an additional burden on fluorescent lamp manufacturers because manufacturers already calculate chromaticity coordinates to report an industry-standardized CCT for these lamps in their product catalogs and marketing literature. Therefore, DOE is proposing to include IESNA LM-9-1999 in the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp” under 10 CFR 430.2 and in 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix R as a test method for the measurement and calculation of CCT for fluorescent lamps. 12 The following is the definition of “colored fluorescent lamp” set forth in 10 CFR 430.2: “ *Colored fluorescent lamp* means a fluorescent lamp designated and marketed as a colored lamp, and with either of the following characteristics: a CRI less than 40, as determined according to the method given in CIE Publication 13.2 (see 10 CFR 430.22), or a lamp correlated color temperature less than 2,500K or greater than 6,600K.” Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 introduces a new statutory definition for “colored incandescent lamp,” stating that a colored incandescent lamp is, in part, an incandescent lamp with “a correlated color temperature less than 2,500K, or greater than 4,600K, where correlated temperature is computed according to the Journal of Optical Society of America, Vol. 58, pages 1528-1595 (1986).” 13 As this statutory definition explicitly prescribes the method for calculation of CCT for incandescent lamps, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate this same reference into the incandescent lamp test procedure. DOE does not consider this action to be unduly burdensome, as no manufacturer is required to determine the CCT of their incandescent lamps. However, if a manufacturer intends to seek an exclusion from the regulatory requirements because a particular lamp is less than 2500K or greater than 4600K, then the manufacturer would need to use the Journal of Optical Society of America, Vol. 58, pages 1528-1595
(1968)14 in order to make that determination. 13 This statutory definition supersedes the previous definition for “colored incandescent lamp” which DOE developed and incorporated into 10 CFR 430.2 in the May 1997 Final Rule. 62 FR 29221, 29228 (May 29, 1997) 14 DOE notes that the publication year of the referenced article in the definition of “colored incandescent lamp,” as printed in section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA, contains a typographical error. When incorporating this reference into the CFR, DOE makes the technical correction of replacing “1986” with “1968.” E. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Basic Model As mentioned above, in today's **Federal Register** , DOE is publishing an ANOPR for the energy conservation standards rulemaking that considers separate product classes and efficacy standards for GSFL based on CCT. In order to demonstrate compliance to that potential efficacy standard, manufacturers would have to test and report on a basic model. A “basic model” involves defining a lamp or class of lamps which do not have any differentiating electrical, physical, or functional features that affect efficacy. In the May 1997 Final Rule, DOE stated that the definition of “basic model” for GSFL includes all lamps with essentially identical light output, power input, and luminous efficacy, regardless of their CCT. 62 FR 29221, 29232 (May 29, 1997). However, given DOE's consideration in the ANOPR of establishing product classes based on CCT, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the definition of “basic model” for GSFL in 10 CFR 430.2 so as to require that the lamps have similar CCTs. DOE invites comment from stakeholders on this revision to the definition of “basic model.” F. Reference Ballast Settings for Added Fluorescent Lamp Coverage DOE is aware that the recent introduction of new 4-foot medium bipin and 2-foot U-Shaped fluorescent lamps into the lighting market has effectively expanded DOE's scope of regulation under the existing definition of “fluorescent lamp.” In addition, in the energy conservation standards ANOPR published in today's **Federal Register** , DOE is considering expanding coverage of the fluorescent lamp standard to include additional 4-foot medium bipin, 2-foot U-shaped, 8-foot single pin slimline, and 8-foot recessed double contact high output lamps. Some of the recently introduced fluorescent lamps or the additional fluorescent lamps require additional test procedure specifications ( *i.e.* , reference ballast settings) because the current test procedure is not adequate for this purpose. Specifically, DOE is proposing to adopt a process for determining ballast settings for those lamps which are covered but do not yet have ANSI-approved reference ballast settings. Accordingly, in this document, DOE is proposing test procedures for these additional lamps not contained in the industry test procedures incorporated by reference in DOE's test procedure. The proposed test procedure amendments are as follows: 1. 4-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps The current test procedure for 4-foot medium bipin fluorescent lamps does not specify reference ballast settings for lamps that are not included in ANSI C78.1-1991. DOE is aware of several 4-foot medium bipin lamps that have been introduced since 1991 and, therefore, are not covered in ANSI C78.1-1991. Therefore, DOE proposes to add reference ballast settings for these lamps. For any 4-foot medium bipin lamp not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 (i.e., the updated version DOE is proposing to adopt in this notice), the lamp should be tested using the following reference ballast settings: *T10 and T12 lamps:* 236 volts, 0.430 amps, and 439 ohms. *T8 lamps:* 300 volts, 0.265 amps, and 910 ohms. DOE invites comment on these proposed reference ballast settings for 4-foot medium bipin lamps. 2. 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps Similarly, for 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE is aware of several products that have been introduced since 1991 and are not covered in ANSI 78.1-1991. Therefore, DOE is proposing to also add reference ballast settings for these lamps. For T12 and T8 lamps, DOE determines the appropriate lamp replacement that exists in the C78.901-2005 ( *i.e.* , the updated version that contains U-shaped lamps and that DOE is proposing to adopt in this NOPR), and then uses the corresponding reference ballast settings for all lamps that fall into that category. For lamps not listed in ANSI C78.901-2005, these lamps should be tested using the following reference ballast settings: *T12 lamps:* 236 volts, 0.430 amps, and 439 ohms. *T8 lamps:* 300 volts, 0.265 amps, and 910 ohms. DOE invites comment on these proposed reference ballast settings for 2-foot U-shaped lamps. 3. 8-Foot Slimline Lamps In the energy conservation standards ANOPR published in today's **Federal Register** , DOE is considering expansion of coverage of GSFL to include “8-foot, single pin, instant start, slimline lamps, with a rated wattage ≥ 52, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3-1991.” If DOE decides to adopt standards for these lamps, amendments to the existing test procedures will be required for them as well. However, since these lamps are not contained in ANSI C78.3-1991, there are no reference ballast settings available with which to test them. Therefore, DOE is proposing to develop reference ballast settings for these lamps, which may be used in the event they become “covered products” ( *i.e.* , covered by standards). For any 8-foot slimline lamp not listed in the updated ANSI C78.81-2005, DOE is proposing the following reference ballast settings: *T12 lamps:* 625 volts, 0.425 amps, and 1280 ohms. *T8 lamps:* 625 volts, 0.260 amps, and 1960 ohms. DOE invites comment on these proposed reference ballast settings for 8-foot slimline lamps. 4. 8-Foot High Output Lamps Similarly, for 8-foot high output lamps, in the energy conservation standards ANOPR, DOE is considering expansion of coverage of GSFL to include “8-foot, recessed double-contact, rapid start, HO lamps, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991.” If DOE decides to adopt standards for these lamps, amendments to the existing test procedures will be required for them as well. However, since these lamps are not contained in ANSI C78.1-1991, there are no reference ballast settings available with which to test them. Therefore, DOE is proposing to develop reference ballast settings for these lamps, which may be used in the event they become covered products. For any 8-foot HO lamp not listed in the updated ANSI C78.81-2005, DOE is proposing testing the lamp using the following reference ballast settings: *T12 lamps:* 400 volts, 0.800 amps, and 415 ohms. *T8 lamps:* 450 volts, 0.395 amps, and 595 ohms. DOE invites comment on these proposed reference ballast settings for 8-foot HO lamps. 5. 8-Foot Very High Output Lamps For the reasons explained in today's energy conservation standards ANOPR, DOE is not considering expansion of coverage of the energy conservation standards to 8-foot recessed double contact very high output
(VHO)fluorescent lamps. However, if DOE decides to cover these lamps during a future energy conservation standards rulemaking, a test procedure to accommodate them would be required. Therefore, DOE reviewed the existing DOE test procedure and updated industry test procedures to determine if the current test procedures for GSFL are adequate for 8-foot VHO lamps. With regard to the specifications of the physical and electrical characteristics of these lamps, DOE notes that ANSI C78.81-2005, which DOE proposes to incorporate by reference through this document, already includes the ballast setting specifications for some VHO lamps. For other VHO lamps that are not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005, DOE is proposing reference ballast settings which could be used if these lamps become covered products. Thus, for any VHO lamp not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005, DOE proposes testing the lamp using the following reference ballast settings: *T12 lamps:* 400 volts, 1.500 amps, and 215 ohms. DOE invites comment on these proposed reference ballast settings for VHO lamps. 6. T5 Fluorescent Lamps For the reasons explained in today's energy conservation standards ANOPR, DOE is not considering expansion of coverage of the energy conservation standards to T5 fluorescent lamps. However, if DOE decides to cover these lamps during a future energy conservation standards rulemaking, a test procedure to accommodate them would be required. Therefore, DOE reviewed the existing DOE test procedure and updated industry test procedures and determined that the current test procedures for GSFL are adequate for some T5 lamps. In addition, with regard to the specifications of the physical and electrical characteristics of T5 lamps, DOE notes that ANSI C78.81-2005, which DOE is already proposing to incorporate by reference, includes the ballast setting specifications for some T5 lamps. However, for other T5 lamps not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005, DOE is proposing reference ballast settings which could be used if these lamps become covered products. Thus, for any normal or high output T5 lamp with a nominal length of four feet that is not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005, DOE proposes testing the lamp using the following reference ballast settings: *Normal Ouptut T5:* 329 volts, 0.170 amps, and 950 ohms. *High Output T5:* 235 volts, 0.460 amps, and 255 ohms. Should DOE decide to extend coverage to and evaluate energy conservation standards for other T5 lamps that may subsequently be developed, DOE would establish reference ballast settings in the same manner as normal output and high output T5 lamps addressed above, namely, deriving the reference ballast settings from International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC)60081. 15 DOE would determine the appropriate lamp replacement that exists in the industry standard and use the corresponding reference ballast settings for all lamps that fall into that category. DOE invites comment on this issue and the proposed reference ballast settings for T5 lamps. 15 IEC 60081 is a publication of the International Electrotechnical Commission in Switzerland. This technical publication is cross-referenced by ANSI C78.81-2005 as the source for reference ballast settings of T5 lamps that are not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005. The title of IEC 60081 is *Double-capped fluorescent lamps—Performance specifications.* Available for purchase from *http://webstore.iec.ch.* G. Test Procedures for Added General Service Incandescent Lamp Coverage As stated earlier, EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for GSIL. Currently, for the purpose of Federal Trade Commission
(FTC)labeling requirements, a limited test procedure for GSIL is provided in the CFR. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure in order to:
(1)Specify the units to be tested in 10 CFR 430.24(r)(1);
(2)define the “basic model” for GSIL in 10 CFR 430.2; and
(3)provide a method for calculating GSIL annual energy consumption and efficacy in 10 CFR 430.23(r). Because of the similarity in technology of GSIL and IRL, DOE is proposing that the above additions to the GSIL test procedure be implemented in the same manner as the corresponding IRL test procedure. DOE invites comment on the proposed amendments to the GSIL test procedure. H. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption Section 310(3) of EISA 2007 directs DOE to amend its test procedures for all covered products to incorporate a measure of off mode and standby mode energy consumption, if feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) After careful review, DOE has preliminarily concluded that for the GSFL, IRL, and GSIL which are the subject of this rulemaking, current technologies for these products do not employ a standby mode or off mode. Therefore, DOE believes establishing a test procedure for such features, is infeasible. Given EISA 2007's definitions of “active mode,” “off mode,” and “standby mode,” 16 the lamp must be entirely disconnected from the main power source ( *i.e.* , the lamp is switched off) in order to not provide any active mode function ( *i.e.* , emit light), thereby meeting the second provision in the definition of “off mode.” However, if the lamp is disconnected from the main power source, the lamp clearly does not satisfy the requirements of operating in off mode. In addition, DOE believes that all covered products that meet the definitions of “GSFL,” “IRL,” and “GSIL” are single-function products and do not offer any secondary user-oriented or protective functions. Therefore, DOE believes that it is not feasible to incorporate off mode or standby mode energy use into its test procedures for GSFL, IRL, and GSIL. DOE invites stakeholder comment on the issue of off mode and standby mode energy consumption for the products addressed in this rulemaking. 16 In amending 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii), EISA 2007 defines “active mode,” “off mode,” and “standby mode” as follows: “ The term ‘active mode’ means the condition in which an energy-using product—(I) is connected to a main power source;
(II)has been activated; and
(III)provides 1 or more main functions.” “ The term ‘off mode’ means the condition in which an energy-using product—(I) is connected to a main power source; and
(II)is not providing any stand-by or active mode function.” “The term ‘standby mode’ means the condition in which an energy-using product—(I) is connected to a main power source; and
(II)offers 1 or more of the following user-oriented or protective functions:
(aa)To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer.
(bb)Continuous functions including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions.” IV. Public Participation DOE will make the entire record of this proposed rulemaking, including the transcript from the public meeting, available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024,
(202)586-9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Anyone may purchase a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter. A. Submission of Comments DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice, the proceeding of the public meeting, or any aspect of the rulemaking, until no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's e-mail address for this rulemaking should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Stakeholders should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible, comments should include the electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting a signed original paper document to the address provided at the beginning of this notice. Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE via mail or hand delivery/courier should include one signed original paper copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include:
(1)A description of the items;
(2)whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry;
(3)whether the information is generally known or available from public sources;
(4)whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality;
(5)an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure;
(6)a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and
(7)why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. After the public meeting and the expiration of the period for submission of written statements, DOE will begin conducting the analyses as discussed at the public meeting and reviewing the comments received. B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment Although comments are welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues: 1. Test Procedure Reference Updates DOE seeks comment on the proposed test procedure reference updates, specifically, whether these updates to ANSI, IESNA, and CIE standards would introduce an additional testing burden or change the measurement of lamp efficacy. ( *See* Section 0 for further detail.) 2. High-Frequency Fluorescent Ballast Testing DOE seeks comment on whether it should limit fluorescent lamp testing to low-frequency ballasts when both low- and high-frequency reference ballast settings are available in ANSI C78.81-2005 or ANSI C78.901. ( *See* Section 0 for further detail.) 3. Calculation of Fluorescent Lamp Efficacy DOE seeks comment on whether fluorescent lamp efficacy should be calculated to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. ( *See* Section 0 for further detail.) 4. Measurement and Calculation of Correlated Color Temperature DOE seeks comment on the proposed incorporation by reference of the industry standard LM-9-1999 for measuring and determining CCT for fluorescent lamps. (See Section 0 for further detail.) 5. General Service Fluorescent Lamp Basic Model DOE seeks comment on the proposed requirement that all GSFL that are considered to be the same basic model must have similar CCTs. ( *See* Section 0 for further detail.) 6. Reference Ballast Settings for Added Fluorescent Lamp Coverage DOE seeks comment on the proposed reference ballast settings for 4-foot medium bipin lamps, 2-foot U-shaped lamps, 8-foot single pin slimline lamps, 8-foot high output lamps, 8-foot very high output lamps, and T5 fluorescent lamps. ( *See* Section 0 for further detail.) 7. Additions to the General Service Incandescent Lamp Test Procedure DOE seeks comment on the proposed additions to the GSIL test procedure:
(1)Specifying the units to be tested in 10 CFR 430.24(r)(1),
(2)defining the “basic model” for GSIL in 10 CFR 430.2, and
(3)providing a method for calculating GSIL annual energy consumption and efficacy in 10 CFR 430.23(r). ( *See* Section 0 for further detail.) 8. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption DOE seeks comment on its proposal to not include test procedures off mode and standby mode energy consumption of GSFL, IRL, and GSIL. ( *See* Section 0 for further detail.) V. Regulatory Review A. Executive Order 12866 Today's proposed rule has been determined to not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. B. National Environmental Policy Act DOE has determined that this proposed rule is covered under the Categorical Exclusion A6 found in DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulation at Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies because this rule is establishing revisions to existing test procedures that will not affect the quality or distribution of energy and will not result in any environmental impacts. 17 Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. 17 Categorical Exclusion A6 provides, “Rulemakings that are strictly procedural, such as rulemaking (under 48 CFR part 9) establishing procedures for technical and pricing proposals and establishing contract clauses and contracting practices for the purchase of goods and services, and rulemaking (under 10 CFR part 600) establishing application and review procedures for, and administration, audit, and closeout of, grants and cooperative agreements.” C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: *http://www.gc.doe.gov* . EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to incorporate into DOE's energy conservation program certain consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, including the products for which DOE is proposing test procedures in this notice. On October 18, 2005, DOE published in the **Federal Register** a technical amendment to place in the CFR the energy conservation standards, and related definitions, that Congress prescribed in EPACT 2005. 70 FR 60407. Today, DOE is publishing further technical amendments to certain energy conservation standards for lamps previously published in the **Federal Register** on May 29, 1997. DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. As part of this rulemaking, DOE examined the existing compliance costs already borne by manufacturers and compared them to the revised compliance costs, based on the proposed revisions to the test procedure. DOE does not find that the costs imposed by the revisions proposed in this document would result in any significant increase in testing or compliance costs. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE tentatively concludes and certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). D. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This NOPR would not impose any new information or recordkeeping requirements, since it does not change the existing manufacturer certification and reporting requirements adopted in DOE's May 29, 1997, final rule. Accordingly, no OMB clearance is required under the PRA. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For proposed regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments that may be affected before establishing a requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at *http://www.gc.doe.gov* ). Today's proposed rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply. F. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule that may affect family well-being. Today's proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is unnecessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. G. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. H. Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:
(1)Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
(2)write regulations to minimize litigation;
(3)provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by Section 3(a), Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1)Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
(2)clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation;
(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4)specifies the retroactive effect, if any;
(5)adequately defines key terms; and
(6)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. I. Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. J. Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1)Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and
(2)is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or
(3)is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and is therefore, not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. K. Executive Order 12630 Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. L. Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), the Department of Energy must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275), as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70) 15 U.S.C. 788. Section 32 provides, in essence that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Department of Justice
(DOJ)and the FTC concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The amendments and revisions proposed in this notice incorporate updates to certain commercial standards already codified in the CFR. The Department has evaluated these revised standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act, ( *i.e.* , that they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule. IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses. Issued in Washington, DC on February 21, 2008. Alexander A. Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 10 CFR part 430 as set forth below: PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 2. Section 430.2 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (15), redesignating paragraphs
(16)through
(26)as paragraphs
(17)through
(27)and by adding a new paragraph (16), in the definition for “Basic Model,” b. Revising the definition for “Cold temperature fluorescent lamp,” c. Revising the definition for “Colored fluorescent lamp,” d. Revising paragraph
(3)in the definition for “Fluorescent lamp.” The revisions and additions read as follows: § 430.2 Definitions. *Basic Model* * * *
(15)With respect to general service fluorescent lamps, means lamps that have essentially identical light output and electrical characteristics—including lumens per watt, color rendering index (CRI), and correlated color temperature (CCT)—and that do not have any differing physical or functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or efficacy.
(16)With respect to general service incandescent lamps, means lamps that have essentially identical light output and electrical characteristics—including lumens per watt—and that do not have any differing physical or functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or efficacy. * * * *Cold temperature fluorescent lamp* means a fluorescent lamp specifically designed to start at −20 °F when used with a ballast conforming to the requirements of ANSI Standard C78.81-2005 and C78.901-2005 (see 10 CFR 430.22), and is expressly designated as a cold temperature lamp both in markings on the lamp and in marketing materials, including but not limited to catalogs, sales literature, and promotional material. *Colored fluorescent lamp* means a fluorescent lamp designated and marketed as a colored lamp, and with either of the following characteristics: A CRI less than 40, as determined according to the method given in CIE Publication 13.3 (see 10 CFR 430.22), or a lamp correlated color temperature less than 2,500K or greater than 6,600K, as determined according to the method set forth in IESNA LM-9-99 (see 10 CFR 430.22). *Fluorescent lamp* * * *
(3)Any rapid start lamp (commonly referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) with recessed double contact bases of nominal overall length of 96 inches and 0.800 nominal amperes, as defined in ANSI C78.81-2005 (see 10 CFR 430.22). * * * 3. Section 430.22 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) and adding a new paragraph (b)(12) to read as follows: § 430.22 Reference sources. (b)(1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANSI standards listed in this paragraph may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036,
(212)642-4900. 1. ANSI C78.1-1991, “for Fluorescent Lamps—Rapid-Start Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics” 2. ANSI C78.3-1991, “for Fluorescent Lamps—Instant-Start and Cold-Cathode Types—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics” 3. ANSI C78.375-1997, “for Fluorescent Lamps—Guide for Electrical Measurements” 4. ANSI C78.81-2005, “for Electric Lamps—Double-Capped Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics” 5. ANSI C78.901-2005, “for Electric Lamps—Single-Based Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics” 6. ANSI C82.3-2002 “for Reference Ballasts for Fluorescent Lamps” 7. ANSI C79.1-1994, “Nomenclature for Glass Bulbs—Intended for Use with Electric Lamps” 8. ANSI C78.21-1989, “Incandescent Lamps—PAR and R Shapes” 9. ANSI Standard Z21.56-1994, “Gas-Fired Pool Heaters,” section 2.9
(2)Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The IESNA standards listed in this paragraph may be obtained from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 120 Wall Street, Floor 17, New York, NY 10005-4001,
(212)248-5000. 1. Illuminating Engineering Society LM-9-99, “IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Fluorescent Lamps” 2. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America LM-20-1994, “IESNA Approved Method for Photometric Testing of Reflector-Type Lamps” 3. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America LM-45-00, “IES Approved Method for Electrical and Photometric Measurements of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps” 4. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America LM-58-1994, “IESNA Guide to Spectroradiometric Measurements” 5. *Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Lighting Handbook, Reference and Application,* 8th Edition, 1993, Chapter 6, Light Sources
(3)International Commission on Illumination (CIE). The CIE standard listed in this paragraph may be obtained from the International Commission on Illumination, CIE Bureau Central, Kegelgasse 27, A-1030, Vienna, Austria; Telephone: +43 1-714 31 87 0; e-mail: *ciecb@cie.co.at;* Web site: *http://www.cie.co.at/cie/.* 1. International Commission on Illumination
(CIE)Publication No. 13.3-1995, “Method of Measuring and Specifying Color Rendering Properties of Light Sources,” ISBN 3 900 734 57 7
(12)Optical Society of America (OSA). The OSA journal article listed in this paragraph may be obtained from the Optical Society of America, 2010 Massachusetts Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036-1012,
(202)223-8130; Web site: *http://www.osa.org/.* 1. Journal of Optical Society of America, Vol. 58, pages 1528-1595 (1968). 4. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph
(r)to read as follows: § 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption.
(r)*General Service Fluorescent Lamps, General Service Incandescent Lamps, and Incandescent Reflector Lamps.*
(1)The estimated annual energy consumption for general service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year, shall be the product of the input power in kilowatts as determined in accordance with section 4 of Appendix R to this subpart and an average annual use specified by the manufacturer, with the resulting product rounded off to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year. Manufacturers must provide a clear and accurate description of the assumptions used for the estimated annual energy consumption.
(2)The lamp efficacy for general service fluorescent lamps shall be equal to the average lumen output divided by the average lamp wattage as determined in section 4 of Appendix R of this subpart, with the resulting quotient rounded off to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt.
(3)The lamp efficacy for general service incandescent lamps shall be equal to the average lumen output divided by the average lamp wattage as determined in section 4 of Appendix R of this subpart, with the resulting quotient rounded off to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt.
(4)The lamp efficacy for incandescent reflector lamps shall be equal to the average lumen output divided by the average lamp wattage as determined in section 4 of Appendix R of this subpart, with the resulting quotient rounded off to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt.
(5)The color rendering index and correlated color temperature of a general service fluorescent lamp shall be tested and determined in accordance with section 4.4 of Appendix R of this subpart and rounded off to the nearest unit. 5. Section 430.24 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (r)(1) introductory text, is revised to read as follows: § 430.24 Units to be tested. (r)(1) For each basic model of general service fluorescent lamp, general service incandescent lamp, and incandescent reflector lamp samples of production lamps shall be tested and the results for all samples shall be averaged for a 12-month period. * * * 5. Section 430.25 is revised to read as follows: § 430.25 Laboratory Accreditation Program. The testing for general service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps shall be performed in accordance with Appendix R to this subpart. The testing for medium base compact fluorescent lamps shall be performed in accordance with Appendix W of this subpart. This testing shall be conducted by test laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or by an accrediting organization recognized by NVLAP. NVLAP is a program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. NVLAP standards for accreditation of laboratories that test for compliance with standards for lamp efficacy and CRI are set forth in 15 CFR part 285 as supplemented by *NVLAP Handbook 150-01,* “Energy Efficient Lighting Products, Lamps and Luminaires.” A manufacturer's or importer's own laboratory, if accredited, may conduct the applicable testing. 6. Appendix R to Subpart B of Part 430 is amended by: a. Revising the title of Appendix R; b. Revising sections 1 and 2.1; c. Removing in section 2.6 “whole number” and add in its place “tenth decimal place”; d. Removing in section 2.9, “and in IESNA LM-66 for medium base compact fluorescent lamps.”; e. Removing section 3.4; f. Revising sections 4.1.1; g. Redesignating section 4.1.2 as 4.1.3; h. Adding new sections 4.1.2, 4.1.2.1, 4.1.2.2, 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4, 4.1.2.5, and 4.1.2.6; i. Revising section 4.2.2; j. Removing section 4.4; and k. Redesignating section 4.5 as 4.4 and revise the title for redesignated section 4.4 and text for redesignated sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. The revisions and additions read as follows: Appendix R to Subpart B of Part 430 —Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average Lamp Efficacy (LE), Color Rendering Index (CRI), and Correlated Color Temperature
(CCT)of Electric Lamps 1. *Scope:* This appendix applies to the measurement of lamp lumens, electrical characteristics, CRI, and CCT for general service fluorescent lamps, and to the measurement of lamp lumens, electrical characteristics for general service incandescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. 2. *Definitions* 2.1 To the extent that definitions in the referenced IESNA and CIE standards do not conflict with the DOE definitions, the definitions specified in § 1.2 of IESNA LM-9, § 3.0 of IESNA LM-20, § 1.2 and the Glossary of IESNA LM-45, § 2 of IESNA LM-58, and Appendix 1 of CIE Publication No. 13.3 shall be included. 4. *Test Methods and Measurements* 4.1 *General Service Fluorescent Lamps* 4.1.1 The measurement procedure shall be as described in IESNA LM-9, except that lamps shall be operated at the appropriate voltage and current conditions as described in ANSI C78.375 and in ANSI C78.81 or C78.901, and lamps shall be operated using the appropriate reference ballast at input voltage specified by the reference circuit as described in ANSI C82.3 (see 10 CFR 430.22). If, for a lamp, both low-frequency and high-frequency reference ballast settings are included in the ANSI standard, the lamp shall be operated using the low-frequency reference ballast. 4.1.2 For lamps not listed in ANSI C78.81 nor in C78.901, the lamp shall be operated using the following reference ballast settings: 4.1.2.1 4-Foot medium bi-pin lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast settings: T10 or T12 lamps are to use 236 volts, 0.43 amps, and 439 ohms; T8 lamps are to use 300 volts, 0.265 amps, and 910 ohms. 4.1.2.2 2-Foot U-shaped lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast settings: T12 lamps are to use 236 volts, 0.430 amps, and 439 ohms; T8 lamps are to use 300 volts, 0.265 amps, and 910 ohms. 4.1.2.3 8-Foot high output lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast settings: T12 lamps are to use 400 volts, 0.800 amps, and 415 ohms; T8 lamps are to use 450 volts, 0.395 amps, and 595 ohms. 4.1.2.4 8-Foot slimline lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast settings: T12 lamps are to use 625 volts, 0.425 amps, and 1280 ohms; T8 lamps are to use 625 volts, 0.260 amps, and 1960 ohms. 4.1.2.5 8-Foot very high output lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast settings: T12 lamps are to use 400 volts, 1.500 amps, and 215 ohms. 4.1.2.6 Nominal 4-Foot T5 lamps shall be operated using the following reference ballast settings: Normal output lamps are to use 329 volts, 0.170 amps, and 950 ohms; high output lamps are to use 235 volts, 0.460 amps, and 255 ohms. 4.1.3 Lamp lumen output (lumens) and lamp electrical power input (watts), at the reference condition, shall be measured and recorded. Lamp efficacy shall be determined by computing the ratio of the measured lamp lumen output and lamp electrical power input at equilibrium for the reference condition. 4.2 *General Service Incandescent Lamps* 4.2.2 The test procedure shall conform with sections 5 and 9 of IESNA LM-45 and the lumen output of the lamp shall be determined in accordance with section 9 of IESNA LM-45. Lamp electrical power input in watts shall be measured and recorded. Lamp efficacy shall be determined by computing the ratio of the measured lamp lumen output and lamp electrical power input at equilibrium for the reference condition. The test report shall conform to § 11 of IESNA LM-45 (see 10 CFR 430.22). 4.4 *Determination of Color Rendering Index and Correlated Color Temperature* 4.4.1 The CRI shall be determined in accordance with the method specified in CIE Publication 13.3 for general service fluorescent lamps. The CCT shall be determined in accordance with the method specified in IESNA LM-9 for general service fluorescent lamps. The CCT shall be determined in accordance with the Journal of Optical Society of America, Vol. 58, pages 1528-1595
(1968)for incandescent lamps. The required spectroradiometric measurement and characterization shall be conducted in accordance with the methods set forth in IESNA LM-58 (see 10 CFR 430.22). 4.4.2 The test report shall include a description of the test conditions, equipment, measured lamps, spectroradiometric measurement results, and CRI and CCT determinations. [FR Doc. E8-4035 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0273; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-369-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to all Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires reviewing airplane maintenance records, doing repetitive inspections for cracking of the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder power control modules (PCMs), replacing the PCMs if necessary, and reporting all airplane maintenance records review and inspection results to the manufacturer. This proposed AD would limit the applicability, reduce the initial inspection threshold and repetitive interval, remove the reporting requirement, and require installation of a secondary retention device for the yaw damper modulating piston. Installation of the secondary retention device would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements. This proposed AD results from additional reports of failure or cracking of the PCM manifold in the area of the yaw damper cavity endcap at intervals well below the initial inspection threshold of the existing AD. We are proposing this AD to prevent an uncommanded left rudder hardover in the event of cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper or lower rudder PCMs, and subsequent failure of the PCM manifold, which could result in increased pilot workload, and possible runway departure upon landing. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6487; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0273; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-369-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On August 30, 2006, we issued AD 2006-18-17, amendment 39-14756 (71 FR 52999, September 8, 2006), for all Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. That AD requires reviewing airplane maintenance records, doing repetitive inspections for cracking of the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder power control modules (PCMs), replacing the PCMs if necessary, and reporting all airplane maintenance records review and inspection results to the manufacturer. That AD resulted from manufacturer findings that the inspections required by the existing AD (AD 2003-23-01, amendment 39-13364, which AD 2006-18-17 superseded) must be performed at regular intervals. We issued AD 2006-18-17 to detect and correct cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder PCMs, which could result in an uncommanded left rudder hardover, consequent increased pilot workload, and possible runway departure upon landing. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since the issuance of AD 2006-18-17, there have been additional reports of cracked rudder PCMs in the yaw damper portion of the PCM manifold that failed well below the initial inspection threshold of the AD. As part of the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)and FAA investigation, it was determined that a permanent design modification must be made to the rudder PCM that prevents a left rudder hardover in the event of a failed rudder PCM manifold. The preamble to AD 2006-18-17 specified that we considered the requirements “interim action.” That AD explained that we might consider further rulemaking since the root cause of the cracking had not been determined. Because of the additional premature failures of the rudder PCM, the manufacturer has now developed a final action, which is installation of a secondary means of retention for the modulating piston assembly in the event of a rudder PCM manifold failure. Therefore, we have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination. The inspection thresholds and intervals in AD 2006-18-17 correspond to those in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005, which we referred to in AD 2006-18-17 as the appropriate source of service information for doing the initial and repetitive inspections. However, since we issued that AD, we have received additional reports of failure or cracking of the PCM manifold in the area of the yaw damper cavity endcap at intervals well below the initial inspection threshold of the existing AD. These incidents happened between 20,000 and 46,000 total flight hours. The initial flight-hour threshold in AD 2006-18-17 is 56,000 total flight hours, which corresponds to the threshold in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2. Therefore, we are proposing that operators accomplish the ultrasonic inspections required by AD 2006-18-17 at reduced inspection threshold and intervals, until the final action is accomplished. Boeing has no objection to the reduced inspection thresholds and intervals. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2479, dated November 8, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing a new secondary retention device for the yaw damper piston assembly in both the upper and lower PCMs. The service bulletin specifies two options for installing the new secondary retention device: • Replacing the existing PCM with a new improved PCM. • Modifying, testing, and re-identifying the existing PCM while installed on the airplane. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2479 refers to Parker Service Bulletins 332700-27-312 and 333200-27-314, both dated September 13, 2007, as additional sources of service information for modifying the PCM. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2006-18-17, and retain all but the reporting requirement of that AD. This proposed AD would also limit the applicability, reduce the inspection threshold and repetitive interval, and require eventual installation of a secondary retention device for the yaw damper modulating piston. Installation of a secondary retention device would terminate the repetitive inspection requirements of the existing AD. Explanation of Reporting Requirement AD 2006-18-17 requires that operators report crack findings to Boeing and return cracked or broken PCMs to Parker Hannifin Corporation. This proposed AD would not include those actions. Boeing has now developed a final action, so the report and parts return are no longer necessary. Explanation of 30 Day Comment Period Operators should note that because of the critical need to prevent an uncommanded left rudder hardover, we have determined that a comment period of 30 days, rather than 45 days, is necessary in this case. Costs of Compliance There are about 655 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 86 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per airplane Fleet cost Ultrasonic inspection (required by AD 2006-18-17) 4 None $320, per inspection cycle $27,520, per inspection cycle. Option 1—replacement (new proposed action) Up to 22 Up to $4,496 Up to $6,256 Up to $538,016. Option 2—modification (new proposed action) Up to 13 Up to $722 Up to $1,762 Up to $151,532. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14756 (71 FR 52999, September 8, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0273; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-369-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-18-17. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2479, dated November 8, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from additional reports of failure or cracking of the power control module
(PCM)manifold in the area of the yaw damper cavity endcap at intervals well below the initial inspection threshold of the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded left rudder hardover in the event of cracking in the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper or lower rudder PCM, and subsequent failure of the PCM manifold, which could result in increased pilot workload, and possible runway departure upon landing. 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. Verification of Rudder PCM/Main Manifold Time-in-Service
(f)For any affected airplane, if it can be positively verified that any rudder PCM or PCM main manifold installed on that airplane has accumulated a different total of flight hours or flight cycles than the totals accumulated by that airplane, the flight cycles or flight hours accumulated by the rudder PCM or PCM main manifold will be acceptable as valid starting points for meeting the compliance times required by this AD. Ultrasonic Inspections
(g)Do an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the yaw damper actuator portion of the upper and lower rudder PCMs at the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005. Doing the installation required by paragraph
(j)of this AD ends the inspection requirements of this paragraph for that PCM.
(1)For airplanes that have been inspected before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated July 24, 2003; Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; or Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005: Do the ultrasonic inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight hours or 1,125 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, until the action required by paragraph
(j)of this AD is accomplished.
(i)Within 7,000 flight hours or 1,125 flight cycles after the prior inspection, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2)For airplanes that have not been inspected before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated July 24, 2003; Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; or Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005: Do the ultrasonic inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,000 flight hours or 1,125 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, until the action required by paragraph
(j)of this AD is accomplished.
(i)Prior to the accumulation of 14,000 total flight hours or 2,250 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.
(ii)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD. Action if No Cracking Is Found
(h)If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Before further flight, apply sealant and a torque stripe and install a lockwire on the rudder PCM in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, and Figure 1 or Figure 2, as applicable, of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005. Action if Cracking Is Found
(i)If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph
(g)of this AD: Before further flight, do the action in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
(1)Replace the affected PCM with a new or serviceable PCM in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005.
(2)Replace the PCM with a PCM that has the new secondary retention device installed as specified in paragraph
(j)of this AD. Terminating Action
(j)Within 24 months or 8,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs earlier: Install a new secondary retention device for the yaw damper piston assembly in both the upper and lower PCMs by either replacing the existing PCM with a new improved PCM that already has the new secondary retention device, or by modifying, testing, and re-identifying the existing PCM. Do the installation in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2479, dated November 8, 2007. Doing the installation terminates the inspection requirements of this AD. Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2479 refers to Parker Service Bulletins 332700-27-312 and 333200-27-314, both dated September 13, 2007, as additional sources of service information for modifying the PCM. Prior Accomplishment of Requirements
(k)Actions accomplished before October 13, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-18-17), in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, dated July 24, 2003; or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Parts Installation
(l)As of October 13, 2006 no person may install on any airplane a rudder PCM having a top assembly part number (P/N) 332700-1003, -1005, or -1007; or P/N 333200-1003, -1005, or -1007; unless the PCM has been ultrasonically inspected and found to be without cracks; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2397, Revision 2, dated September 1, 2005, as specified by paragraph
(g)of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (m)(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)AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2006-18-17 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i)of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 4, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5013 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0274; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-038-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes, Model 767 Airplanes, and Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes, Model 767 airplanes, and Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for damage of the electrical terminal at the left and right flightdeck window # 1, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also allow for replacing the flightdeck window # 1 with a new improved flightdeck window equipped with electrical connections, which would end the need for the repetitive inspections for that flightdeck window # 1. This proposed AD results from several reports of electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the electrically heated flightdeck window # 1. In more than one of the incidents, the arcs resulted in open flames. We are proposing this AD to prevent smoke and fire in the cockpit, which could lead to loss of visibility, and injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louis Natsiopolous, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6478; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0274; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-038-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion We have received nine reports of electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the flightdeck window #1. In more than one incident, the arcs resulted in open flames. An investigation showed that the electrical arcs are caused by loose terminal connections in the left and right flightdeck window # 1 that use screw and lug electrical heat terminations. Arcing occurs due to improper torque or cross-threading of the screw. The window was redesigned in 2004 to include electrical heat terminals that use pin and socket connections rather than screws and lugs. Electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the flightdeck window # 1, if not corrected, could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit, and consequent loss of visibility, and injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the service bulletins listed in the table below. Boeing Service Bulletins Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin Boeing model 757-30-0019, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2007 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes. 757-30-0020, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2007 757-300 series airplanes. 767-30-0039, dated December 5, 2007 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. 767-30-0041, dated December 5, 2007 767-400ER series airplanes. 777-30-0012, Revision 2, dated December 19, 2007 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The service bulletins describe procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for damage (including arcing, loose terminal, or heat damage) of the electrical terminal (J5 terminal) at the left and right flightdeck window # 1, and corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions are applying correct torque to a loose electrical connection, repairing damaged wiring, or installing a new window # 1. The service bulletins specify that the replacement window can either be a new or serviceable window that uses screws and lugs for the electrical connection, or a new window that uses pins and sockets for the electrical connections. For airplanes on which a new window that uses pins and sockets is installed, the service bulletins also specify changes to the related wire bundle. The service bulletins specify that installing a new window that uses pins and sockets would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type design(s). This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information The service bulletins do not include inspection information for airplanes on which a screw is tightened as part of a corrective action. This proposed AD would specify doing the next detailed inspection within 500 flight hours after the tightening of the screw, and then repeating the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,212 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Parts Cost per product Fleet cost Inspection 1 None $80, per inspection cycle $96,960, per inspection cycle. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Boeing** : Docket No. FAA-2008-0274; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-038-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 28, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category. Table 1.—Airplanes Affected by This AD Boeing model— As identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin— 757-200, −200CB, and −200PF series airplanes 757-30-0019, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2007. 757-300 series airplanes 757-30-0020, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2007. 767-200, −300, and −300F series airplanes 767-30-0039, dated December 5, 2007. 767-400ER series airplanes 767-30-0041, dated December 5, 2007. 777-200 and −300 series airplanes 777-30-0012, Revision 2, dated December 19, 2007. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from several reports of electrical arcs at the terminal blocks of the electrically heated flightdeck window #1. In more than one of the incidents, the arcs resulted in open flames. We are issuing this AD to prevent smoke and fire in the cockpit, which could lead to loss of visibility, and injuries to or incapacitation of the flightcrew. Compliance
(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Service Bulletin Reference
(f)The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD. Inspection and Corrective Actions
(g)Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage (including arcing, loose terminal, or heat damage) of the electrical terminal (J5 terminal) at the left and right flightdeck window #1, and do all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in Work Packages 1 and 2 of the applicable service bulletin. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Except as provided by paragraph
(h)of this AD, repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours. Doing the replacement specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph for the replaced flightdeck window #1.
(h)For airplanes on which a corrective action—either replacement with a new window #1 that uses screws and lugs for the electrical connections, or tightening a loose screw—is done in accordance with Work Package 1 or 2 of the service bulletin: Do the next detailed inspection within 500 flight hours after the corrective action, and repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours. Doing the replacement specified in paragraph
(i)of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph for the replaced flightdeck window #1. Optional Terminating Action
(i)Replacing a flightdeck window #1 that uses screws and lugs for the electrical connections with a flightdeck window that uses pins and sockets for the electrical connections in accordance with Work Packages 3 or 4 of the service bulletin ends the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD for that window #1. Actions Accomplished Previously
(j)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 2 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD. Table 2.—Acceptable Service Bulletins Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin Revision level Date 757-30-0019 Original July 19, 2006. 757-30-0020 Original July 19, 2006. 777-30-0012 Original April 15, 2004. 777-30-0012 1 June 2, 2006. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Louis Natsiopolous, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6478; fax
(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5011 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0306; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-014-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Model 525 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 525 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to inspect for missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly; and, if you find that firewall sealant is missing, seal with firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly. This proposed AD results from a report that firewall sealant may not have been applied between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly during manufacture of certain Model 525 airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly, which could result in failure of the fire extinguishing system to prevent the spread of fire through the firewall gap. This failure could lead to an uncontrolled fire. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone:
(316)517-5800; fax:
(316)942-9006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Galstad, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4135; fax:
(316)946-4107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2008-0306; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-014-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We have received a report that firewall sealant may not have been applied between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly during manufacture of Model 525 airplanes, serial numbers 525-0600 through 525-0662. A nacelle fire may pass through the gap where the firewall sealant is missing. Although the fire detection system and fire extinguishing system remain operational, the effectiveness of the fire extinguishing system has not been shown to prevent the spread of fire through the firewall gap. The fire could pass through the gap in the firewall or the effectiveness of the fire extinguishing system be defeated by the gap. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an uncontrolled fire. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Cessna Aircraft Company Citation Service Letter SL525-71-05, Revision 1, dated February 6, 2008. The service information describes procedures for: • Inspecting for missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly; and • Sealing with firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to inspect for missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly; and, if you find that firewall sealant is missing, seal with firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information The service information requires compliance within 600 hours time-in-service
(TIS)or 1 year after the date of receipt, whichever occurs first. Due to the severity of the safety issue (uncontrolled fire), this proposed AD has a compliance of within the next 60 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. The requirements of this proposed AD, if adopted as a final rule, would take precedence over the provisions in the service information. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 45 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 Not Applicable $80 $3,600 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 $30 $350 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Cessna Aircraft Company:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0306; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-014-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by May 12, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model 525 airplanes, serial numbers 525-0600 through 525-0662, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that firewall sealant may not have been applied between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly during manufacture of certain Model 525 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly, which could result in failure of the fire extinguishing system to prevent the spread of fire through the firewall gap. This failure could lead to an uncontrolled fire. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Inspect between the 6352225 aft firewall assembly and 6352226 seal assembly for missing firewall sealant Within the next 60 hours time-in-service
(TIS)after the effective date of this AD or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Citation Service Letter SL525-71-05, Revision 1, dated February 6, 2008.
(2)If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, you find there is missing firewall sealant between the 6352225 aft firewall assembly and 6352226 seal assembly, seal with U000117S firewall sealant in the gap between the 6352225 aft firewall assembly and 6352226 seal assembly Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD Follow Cessna Aircraft Company Citation Service Letter SL525-71-05, Revision 1, dated February 6, 2008. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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: James Galstad, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:
(316)946-4135; 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://www.regulations.gov* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 7, 2008. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5005 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0294; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-288-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Analyses of in-service reports revealed that in case of failure of the wings anti-ice valve, indications of untimely anti-icing with the wings anti-ice selector on “OFF” or of insufficient anti-icing with the wings anti-ice selector on “AUTO” might not be properly displayed to the flight crew. It may result, on ground, in potential structural damages due to a leading edge overheat, or in-flight, in an insufficient anti-ice power. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0294; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-288-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0137, dated May 16, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Analyses of in-service reports revealed that in case of failure of the wings anti-ice valve, indications of untimely anti-icing with the wings anti-ice selector on “OFF” or of insufficient anti-icing with the wings anti-ice selector on “AUTO” might not be properly displayed to the flight crew. It may result, on ground, in potential structural damages due to a leading edge overheat, or in-flight, in an insufficient anti-ice power. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates an upgrade of the wings anti-ice monitoring circuitry per implementation of modifications M2814 (Service Bulletin
(SB)F2000EX-116) and M2949 (SB F2000EX-140) to cover the whole monitoring logic of the wings anti-ice system. The modifications include adding a relay between the bleed air computer and the wing anti-ice valve; modifying the aircraft wiring; and rerouting an existing wire between the right- and left-hand electrical cabinets. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000EX-116, dated May 31, 2006, and Service Bulletin F2000EX-140, dated February 28, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 46 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,344 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $65,312, or $5,024 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Dassault Aviation:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0294; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-288-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers 1 through 5 and 7 through 27 inclusive. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 30: Ice and Rain Protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Analyses of in-service reports revealed that in case of failure of the wings anti-ice valve, indications of untimely anti-icing with the wings anti-ice selector on “OFF” or of insufficient anti-icing with the wings anti-ice selector on “AUTO” might not be properly displayed to the flight crew. It may result, on ground, in potential structural damages due to a leading edge overheat, or in-flight, in an insufficient anti-ice power. This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)mandates an upgrade of the wings anti-ice monitoring circuitry per implementation of modifications M2814 (Service Bulletin
(SB)F2000EX-116) and M2949 (SB F2000EX-140) to cover the whole monitoring logic of the wings anti-ice system. The modifications include adding a relay between the bleed air computer and the wing anti-ice valve; modifying the aircraft wiring; and rerouting an existing wire between the right- and left-hand electrical cabinets. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, modify the electrical wiring of the wings' anti-ice system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-116, dated May 31, 2006, and Service Bulletin F2000EX-140, dated February 28, 2007. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0137, dated May 16, 2007; Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-116, dated May 31, 2006; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-140, dated February 28, 2007; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5006 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0270; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-255-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Galaxy Airplanes and Gulfstream 200 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The 3 supporting blocks [installed on hydraulic lines] were made of Teflon, which is unsuitable material for this application. Excessive wear of the blocks was discovered on numerous aircraft, as well as several cases of chafing between the loosely supported tubes. In one case, hydraulic fluid was lost due to fatigue failure of an inadequately supported tube. Loss of hydraulic fluid causes subsequent multiple failures of hydraulically operated systems. Multiple failures of hydraulically operated systems (for the flight air brake actuators, brake system, right thrust reverser, etc.) could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0270; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-255-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness Directive 29-07-01-11, dated May 28, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: The 3 supporting blocks [installed on hydraulic tubes] were made of Teflon, which is unsuitable material for this application. Excessive wear of the blocks was discovered on numerous aircraft, as well as several cases of chafing between the loosely supported tubes. In one case, hydraulic fluid was lost due to fatigue failure of an inadequately supported tube. Loss of hydraulic fluid causes subsequent multiple failures of hydraulically operated systems. Multiple failures of hydraulically operated systems (for the flight air brake actuators, brake system, right thrust reverser, etc.) could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The corrective actions include repetitive visual inspections of the attaching blocks for wear and of the hydraulic tubes to determine if any tube is loose or damaged; an inspection of the entire length of the tubes for chafing, damage, and cracking; replacement of chafed, damaged, or cracked tubes; and replacement of blocks made of Teflon in the right-hand aft fuselage equipment bay with new blocks made of Nylon 6/6. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Gulfstream has issued Service Bulletin 200-29-316, dated June 29, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 129 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $54 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $27,606, or $214 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Formerly Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0270; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-255-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Gulfstream Model Galaxy airplanes and Gulfstream 200 airplanes, serial numbers 004 through 156, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 29: Hydraulic Power. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: The 3 supporting blocks [installed on hydraulic tubes] were made of Teflon, which is unsuitable material for this application. Excessive wear of the blocks was discovered on numerous aircraft, as well as several cases of chafing between the loosely supported tubes. In one case, hydraulic fluid was lost due to fatigue failure of an inadequately supported tube. Loss of hydraulic fluid causes subsequent multiple failures of hydraulically operated systems. Multiple failures of hydraulically operated systems (for the flight air brake actuators, brake system, right thrust reverser, etc.) could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The corrective actions include repetitive visual inspections of the attaching blocks for wear and of the hydraulic tubes to determine if any tube is loose or damaged; an inspection of the entire length of the tubes for chafing, damage, and cracking; replacement of chafed, damaged, or cracked tubes; and replacement of blocks made of Teflon in the right-hand aft fuselage equipment bay with new blocks made of Nylon 6/6. Actions and Compliance
(f)Do the following actions.
(1)Within 50 flight hours or one month after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless previously accomplished within 300 flight hours or six months prior to the effective date of this AD: Perform a visual inspection of the clamping blocks for wear and of the hydraulic tubes to determine if any tube is loose or damaged. Clamping blocks are shown in detail B of Figure 2 of Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-29-316, dated June 29, 2007, or in details B and C of Figure 10, Page 0, of the Gulfstream G200 Illustrated Parts Catalog Chapter 29-10-30.
(i)If clamping blocks are not worn, repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours or six months, whichever comes first, until the replacement required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is done.
(ii)If any hydraulic tube is loose or damaged, before further flight, inspect the hydraulic tubes along their entire length for chafing, damage, and cracks.
(iii)Before further flight, repair or replace all chafed, damaged, or cracked tubes using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority of Israel
(CAAI)(or its delegated agent). Chapter 20-10-12 of the Gulfstream G200 Maintenance Manual is one approved method.
(iv)Before further flight, replace all worn clamping blocks by doing the replacement specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (f)(1)(v) of this AD.
(v)If Nylon 6/6 clamping blocks part number (P/N) 4AS3565055-511 are not available during the replacement specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this AD, before further flight, install new or serviceable Teflon clamping blocks P/N 4AS3565055-507. Within 300 flight hours or six months after doing the installation, do the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and repeat thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours or six months, whichever comes first, until the replacement required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is done.
(2)Within 600 flight hours or one year, whichever comes first, after the effective date of this AD, unless previously accomplished: Replace the existing Teflon clamping blocks P/N 4AS3565055-507 with Nylon 6/6 clamping blocks P/N 4AS3565055-511 in accordance with Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-29-316, dated June 29, 2007. Accomplishment of this replacement constitutes terminating action for all inspections of the clamping blocks required by this AD. Accomplishment of this replacement also constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections of the hydraulic tube required by paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(v) of this AD. Note 1: Succeeding scheduled maintenance checks of this area are to be performed per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). FAA AD Differences Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1)The MCAI does not specify service information if any tube replacement is done. This AD requires doing the replacement as specified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(2)The MCAI specifies doing a one-time inspection of the installed Teflon blocks but also specifies doing repetitive inspections of temporary replacement Teflon blocks until the permanent replacement with Nylon 6/6 clamping blocks is done. This AD requires repetitive inspections of all Teflon blocks until the permanent replacement is done.
(3)The MCAI specifies that doing the replacement with Nylon 6/6 clamping blocks constitutes terminating action. This AD specifies that doing the replacement with Nylon 6/6 clamping blocks constitutes terminating action for the inspections of the clamping blocks and for the repetitive inspections of the hydraulic tubes. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2677; 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 Israeli Airworthiness Directive 29-07-01-11, dated May 28, 2007, and Gulfstream Service Bulletin 200-29-316, dated June 29, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5015 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0295; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-298-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the two spring arms in the spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel well to determine if the spring arms are made of aluminum or composite material, and repetitive related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of cracked and broken aluminum spring arms. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracked or broken spring arms. A cracked or broken spring arm could separate from the airplane and result in potential hazard to persons or property on the ground, or ingestion into the engine with engine damage and potential shutdown, or damage to the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Deutschman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6449; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0295; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-298-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Two spin brake assemblies are installed in the nose wheel well and include the spin brake spring arms. Wear bars or brake pads installed on the spin brake spring arms bring the nose wheel to a stop after the gear is retracted. We have received reports of cracked and broken aluminum spring arms. In some cases, the aluminum spin brake spring arm separated from the airplane. Cracked or broken spring arms, if not detected and corrected, could separate from the airplane and result in potential hazard to persons or property on the ground, or ingestion into the engine with engine damage and potential shutdown, or damage to the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, dated September 10, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for an inspection of the two spring arms in the spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel well to determine if the spring arms are made of aluminum or composite material. The compliance time for determining the material of the spring arm is before the accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles on the spring arm, or within 300 flight cycles, whichever occurs later. For any aluminum spin arm, the service bulletin describes procedures for related investigative/corrective actions. The related investigative actions include repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the aluminum spring arm. The compliance time for doing the first detailed inspection is before the accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles on the spin arm; or within 300 flight cycles, whichever occurs later. The repetitive interval for the detailed inspection is 300 flight cycles. The compliance time for doing the first high frequency eddy current inspection is before the accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles on the spin arm; or within 1,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs later. The repetitive interval for the high frequency eddy current inspection is 1,500 flight cycles. The corrective action if any crack is found on an aluminum spring arm is replacing the spring arm with a new spring arm made of either aluminum or composite material. The service bulletin states that the replacement is to be done before further flight, except that the airplane can be operated for 10 calendar days with the spin brake spring arms removed provided the airplane is operated within the restrictions given in the Boeing Model 757 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). The service bulletin also specifies that replacing an aluminum spring arm with a spring arm made of composite material ends the need for the repetitive inspections. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Interim Action The service bulletin indicates that the design for the spring arm was changed from composite to aluminum due to reports of excessive noise related to the spring arm made of composite material. Boeing is currently developing a kit to replace the aluminum spring arm with a new part made from corrosion resistant steel (CRES). Once the CRES spring arm is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking. However, the spring arm made of composite material is adequate to ensure continued operational safety of the airplane. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 668 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $53,440, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 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, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0295; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-298-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 28, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of cracked and broken aluminum spring arms. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracked or broken spring arms. A cracked or broken spring arm could separate from the airplane and result in potential hazard to persons or property on the ground, or ingestion into the engine with engine damage and potential shut down, or damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Inspections and Corrective Actions
(f)At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32- 0176, dated September 10, 2007, do a general visual inspection to determine the material (aluminum or composite) of the two spring arms in the spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel well. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the material can be conclusively determined from that review. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and all repetitive inspections thereafter, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, dated September 10, 2007, 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. Optional Terminating Action
(g)Replacing an aluminum spring arm with a spring arm made of composite material in accordance with Figure 5 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-32-0176, dated September 10, 2007, ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph
(f)of this AD for that spring arm. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Jason Deutschman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)917-6449; fax
(425)917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using 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. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5014 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0292; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-286-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ and EMB-145XR Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found that in case of fuel leakage inside the conduit used to route the clear ice detector wiring through the wing fuel tank, it is possible to have fuel accumulation inside the conduit due to application of wiring protection sealant in the conduit end. The absence of fuel leakage detectability into the clear ice detector wiring conduit, associated with an ignition source, could result in fire or explosion inside the tank. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0292; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-286-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-02-03, effective March 15, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: It has been found that in case of fuel leakage inside the conduit used to route the clear ice detector wiring through the wing fuel tank, it is possible to have fuel accumulation inside the conduit due to application of wiring protection sealant in the conduit end. The absence of fuel leakage detectability into the clear ice detector wiring conduit, associated with an ignition source, could result in fire or explosion inside the tank. Corrective action includes removing the sealant used to protect the wiring conduits of the left- and right-hand clear ice detectors at the holes through the wing spars, and installing protective Teflon spiral around the wiring. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Embraer has issued Service Bulletins 145-30-0048 and 145LEG-30-0015, both dated March 31, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 142 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts cost would be negligible. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $34,080, or $240 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0292; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-286-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ and EMB-145XR airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer Service Bulletins 145-30-0048 and 145LEG-30-0015, both dated March 31, 2006. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 30: Ice and Rain Protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: It has been found that in case of fuel leakage inside the conduit used to route the clear ice detector wiring through the wing fuel tank, it is possible to have fuel accumulation inside the conduit due to application of wiring protection sealant in the conduit end. The absence of fuel leakage detectability into the clear ice detector wiring conduit, associated with an ignition source, could result in fire or explosion inside the tank. Corrective action includes removing the sealant used to protect the wiring conduits of the left-hand
(LH)and right-hand
(RH)clear ice detectors at the holes through the wing spars, and installing protective Teflon spiral around the wiring. Actions and Compliance
(f)At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, unless already done, remove the sealant used to protect the LH and RH clear ice detectors wiring conduits at the holes through the wing spars and install protective Teflon spiral; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-0048 or 145LEG-30-0015, both dated March 31, 2006; as applicable.
(1)For Model EMB-135BJ airplanes: Within 4,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2)For Model EMB-145XR airplanes: Within 5,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows. The MCAI specifies a compliance time of “5,000 flight hours” for all affected airplanes. This AD requires a compliance time of “5,000 flight hours” for Model EMB-145XR airplanes, and “4,000 flight hours” for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes. This difference has been coordinated with ANAC. 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-02-03, effective March 15, 2007; Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-0048, dated March 31, 2006; and Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0015, dated March 31, 2006; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5002 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0293; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-287-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, -500 Airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: A recent incident evidenced that some failures of the Pitot probe heating resistance may not be seen by the low current detection system on aircraft not equipped with [ATR] modification 05469 * * *. In some conditions, an out of tolerance resistance, failing to provide a proper Pitot probe de-icing could not be detected. The unsafe condition is that undetected icing of the pitot probe could produce incorrect airspeed readings, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0293; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-287-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0179, dated July 31, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A recent incident evidenced that some failures of the Pitot probe heating resistance may not be seen by the low current detection system on aircraft not equipped with [ATR] modification 05469 (SB (Service Bulletin) ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042). In some conditions, an out of tolerance resistance, failing to provide a proper Pitot probe de-icing could not be detected. To address this unsafe condition, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires repetitive verification of the Pitot probes' resistance and replacement of any defective probes, and ultimate replacement of the three low current sensors for Captain, First Officer and Standby Pitot probes. The unsafe condition is that undetected icing of the pitot probe could produce incorrect airspeed readings, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information ATR has issued the service information described in the following table. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. Service Information Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin Revision level Date ATR42-30-0072 1 June 1, 2005. ATR42-30-0074 Original May 14, 2007. ATR72-30-1042 1 June 1, 2005. ATR72-30-1044 Original May 14, 2007. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 51 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,880 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $112,200, or $2,200 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **ATR—Gie Avions De Transport Regional (Formerly Aerospatiale):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0293; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-287-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers; except for airplanes having ATR Modification 05469 installed in production, or installed in service in accordance with Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042, both Revision l, both dated June 1, 2005; as applicable. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 30: Ice and Rain Protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: A recent incident evidenced that some failures of the Pitot probe heating resistance may not be seen by the low current detection system on aircraft not equipped with [ATR] modification 05469 (SB (Service Bulletin) ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042). In some conditions, an out of tolerance resistance, failing to provide a proper Pitot probe de-icing could not be detected. To address this unsafe condition, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)requires repetitive verification of the Pitot probes' resistance and replacement of any defective probes, and ultimate replacement of the three low current sensors for Captain, First Officer and Standby Pitot probes. The unsafe condition is that undetected icing of the pitot probe could produce incorrect airspeed readings, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 550 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, measure the heating resistance of the three pitot probes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0074 or ATR72-30-1044, both dated May 14, 2007, as applicable. If any resistance exceeds 50 ohms, before next flight, replace the pitot probe in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin. Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 550 flight hours, until the current sensors have been replaced as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
(2)Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the three pitot probe current sensors, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin ATR42-30-0072 or ATR72-30-1042, both Revision 1, both dated June 1, 2005; as applicable. Doing this paragraph ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1137; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)Airworthiness Directive 2007-0179, dated July 31, 2007, and the service information described in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Table 1.—Service Information Avions de Transport Regional Service Bulletin Revision level Dated ATR42-30-0072 1 June 1, 2005. ATR42-30-0074 Original May 14, 2007. ATR72-30-1042 1 June 1, 2005. ATR72-30-1044 Original May 14, 2007. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5003 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-0290; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-250-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sandel Avionics Incorporated Model ST3400 Terrain Awareness Warning System/Radio Magnetic Indicator (TAWS/RMI) Units Approved Under Technical Standard Order(s) C113, C151a, or C151b; Installed on Various Small and Transport Category Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to revise an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to Sandel Avionics Incorporated Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI units as described above. The existing AD currently requires installing a warning placard on the TAWS/RMI and revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM). The existing AD also requires installing upgraded software in the TAWS/RMI. This proposed AD would allow installing later revisions of the software described in the existing AD. This proposed AD results from a report that an in-flight bearing error occurred in a Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI configured to receive bearing information from a very high frequency omnidirectional range
(VOR)receiver interface via a composite video signal, due to a combination of input signal fault and software error. We are proposing this AD to prevent a bearing error, which could lead to an airplane departing from its scheduled flight path, which could result in a reduction in separation from, and a possible collision with, other aircraft or terrain. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sandel Avionics Incorporated (Sandel), 2401 Dogwood Way, Vista, California 92081. 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ha A. Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5335; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-0290; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-250-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion On August 3, 2006, we issued AD 2006-16-18, amendment 39-14718 (71 FR 48461, August 21, 2006), for Sandel Avionics Incorporated Model ST3400 terrain awareness warning system/radio magnetic indicator (TAWS/RMI) units approved under Technical Standard Order(s) C113, C151a, or C151b; installed on various small and transport category airplanes. That AD requires installing a warning placard on the TAWS/RMI and revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM). That AD also requires installing upgraded software in the TAWS/RMI. That AD resulted from a report that an in-flight bearing error occurred in a Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI configured to receive bearing information from a very high frequency omnidirectional range
(VOR)receiver interface via a composite video signal, due to a combination of input signal fault and software error. We issued that AD to prevent a bearing error, which could lead to an airplane departing from its scheduled flight path, which could result in a reduction in separation from, and a possible collision with, other aircraft or terrain. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 2006-16-18, we have determined that later revisions of the software described in Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004, which is specified as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the requirements of the existing AD, are acceptable for installation in the TAWS/RMI without needing our further approval. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would revise AD 2006-16-18 to permit installing later revisions of the software described in the existing service information, and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD describes the installation of later revisions of software than those specified in AD 2006-16-18; however, this change imposes no new costs on operators. Costs are repeated here for operator convenience only. This proposed AD would affect about 300 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $24,000, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and place it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14718 (71 FR 48461, August 21, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **2006-16-18 R1 Sandel Avionics Incorporated:** Docket No. FAA-2007-0290; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-250-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 28, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD revises AD 2006-16-18. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Sandel Avionics Incorporated (Sandel) Model ST3400 terrain awareness warning system/radio magnetic indicator (TAWS/RMI) units approved under Technical Standard Order(s) C113, C151a, or C151b; as identified in Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004; as installed on various small and transport category airplanes, certificated in any category, including, but not limited, to the airplane models listed in Table 1 of this AD. Table 1.—Manufacturers/Airplane Models Manufacturer Airplane model(s) Airbus A300 Avions Marcel Dassault—Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA) Falcon 10. Boeing 727, 737, 747. Bombardier (LearJet) 24, 35, 36, 55. British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 3101. Cessna 208, 208B, 421C; 501, 525, 550, 560, 650, S550. Embraer EMB-120. Dassault-Aviation Mystere-Falcon 50, Mystere-Falcon 200. Gulfstream G-I, G-1159A (G-III). Israel Aircraft Industries
(IAI)1124, 1125 Westwind Astra. McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Piper PA-31T2. Raytheon 58; 1900D, 400; A36; BAe.125 Series 800A; HS.125 Series 600A/700A; Hawker 800-XP; 200, 300, 350; A200, B100, B200, B300, C90, C90A, C90B, E90, F90; MU-300-10. Sabreliner 60 (NA-265-60). Twin Commander 500-A, 695A. Viking Air Limited DHC-6. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that an in-flight bearing error occurred in a Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI unit configured to receive bearing information from a very high frequency omnidirectional range
(VOR)receiver interface via a composite video signal, due to a combination of input signal fault and software error. We are issuing this AD to prevent a bearing error, which could lead to an airplane departing from its scheduled flight path, which could result in a reduction in separation from, and a possible collision with, other aircraft or terrain. 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. Installing Placard
(f)Within 14 days after September 25, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-16-18): Install a placard on the TAWS/RMI which states, “NOT FOR PRIMARY VOR NAVIGATION,” in accordance with Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004. Revising Airplane Flight Manual
(g)Within 14 days after September 25, 2006: Revise the Limitations section of the applicable AFM to include the following statement: “Use of ST3400 TAWS/RMI for primary VOR navigation is prohibited unless the indicator has 3.07 or A3.06 software or later.” This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Updating Software
(h)Within 90 days after September 25, 2006, in accordance with Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004: Field-load the TAWS/RMI with updated software having revision 3.07 (for units having serial numbers (S/Ns) under 2000) or revision A3.06 (for units having S/Ns 2000 and subsequent). Revisions of software later than revision 3.07 or A3.06, as applicable, are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. The placard and AFM limitations revision installed as required by paragraphs
(f)and
(g)of this AD may be removed after the software upgrade required by paragraph
(h)of this AD has been accomplished. Parts Installation
(i)As of 90 days after September 25, 2006, no person may install, on any airplane, a Model ST3400 TAWS/RMI unit, unless it has been modified in accordance with Sandel ST3400 Service Bulletin SB3400-01, Revision B, dated September 15, 2004. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5001 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0271; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-267-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Embraer has issued the Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 145-00-0032 to provide instructions to modify the EMB-145 ( ) aircraft and allow operation with an increased Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). Reassessment of the Damage Tolerance Analysis during development of the SB resulted in changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)for those modified aircraft to include new tasks and to revise some existing ones and its respective intervals. Failure to inspect some structural components, according to the new tasks and intervals for those modified aircraft, could prevent a timely detection of fatigue cracking. Undetected fatigue cracking in these components could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0271; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-267-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-07-01, effective August 21, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Embraer has issued the Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 145-00-0032 to provide instructions to modify the EMB-145 ( ) aircraft and allow operation with an increased Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). Reassessment of the Damage Tolerance Analysis during development of the SB resulted in changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)for those modified aircraft to include new tasks and to revise some existing ones and its respective intervals. Failure to inspect some structural components, according to the new tasks and intervals for those modified aircraft, could prevent a timely detection of fatigue cracking. Undetected fatigue cracking in these components could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section Structural Inspection Requirements and Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new structural inspection requirements. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Temporary Revision
(TR)10-5, dated May 23, 2007, to the EMBRAER EMB145 Maintenance Review Board
(MRB)Report MRB-145/1150. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 572 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $45,760, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0271; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-267-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes, certificated in any category, which have incorporated EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-00-0032. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Embraer has issued the Service Bulletin
(SB)No. 145-00-0032 to provide instructions to modify the EMB-145 ( ) aircraft and allow operation with an increased Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). Reassessment of the Damage Tolerance Analysis during development of the SB resulted in changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI)for those modified aircraft to include new tasks and to revise some existing ones and its respective intervals. Failure to inspect some structural components, according to the new tasks and intervals for those modified aircraft, could prevent a timely detection of fatigue cracking. Undetected fatigue cracking in these components could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section Structural Inspection Requirements and Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new structural inspection requirements. Actions and Compliance
(f)Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS)Structural Inspection Requirements and Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the tasks specified in Appendix 2, Airworthiness Limitation Requirements, Section 4—Structural Inspection Requirements, and Section 5—Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, identified in Temporary Revision
(TR)10-5, dated May 23, 2007, to the EMBRAER EMB 145 Maintenance Review Board
(MRB)Report MRB-145/1150. Note 2: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of TR 10-5 into the sections. When this TR has been included in general revisions of the MRB report, the general revisions may be inserted in the MRB report, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in TR 10-5.
(2)After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used, except as provided by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 3: 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1405; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil Airworthiness Directive 2007-07-01, effective August 21, 2007, and EMBRAER TR 10-5, dated May 23, 2007, to the EMBRAER EMB145 MRB Report MRB-145/1150, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4995 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0297; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-330-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-100 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During maintenance water has been found in the elevator assembly. The unsafe condition is water or ice accumulating in the elevator assembly, which could result in corrosion and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flight control surface, or an unbalanced flight control surface. These conditions could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0297; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-330-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the aviation authority for Germany, has issued German Airworthiness Directive D-2004-004, effective January 8, 2004 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: During maintenance water has been found in the elevator assembly. The unsafe condition is water or ice accumulating in the elevator assembly, which could result in corrosion and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flight control surface, or an unbalanced flight control surface. These conditions could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Avcraft Aerospace GmbH has issued Avcraft Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-55-450, Revision 1, dated November 19, 2003. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 12 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,120, or $260 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **328 Support Services GMBH (Formerly Avcraft Aerospace GmbH):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0297; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-330-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Dornier Model 328-100 airplanes, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 55: Stabilizers. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: During maintenance water has been found in the elevator assembly. The unsafe condition is water or ice accumulating in the elevator assembly, which could result in corrosion and consequent reduced structural integrity of the flight control surface, or an unbalanced flight control surface. These conditions could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions. Install a drain hole in the lower skin of the left and right-hand elevator horns in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Avcraft Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-55-450, Revision 1, dated November 19, 2003. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Although the MCAI or service information specifies a compliance time for installing the drain hole within 23 days, paragraph
(f)of this AD requires that the installation be done within 90 days after the effective date of the AD. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2125; 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 German Airworthiness Directive D-2004-004, dated January 8, 2004, and Avcraft Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-55-450, Revision 1, dated November 19, 2003, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4996 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0275; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-335-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Cracks have been found in the propeller blades and propeller hubs, for which ongoing controlling actions issued by the propeller TC [type certificate] holder (McCauley Propeller Systems) have been mandated by FAA Airworthiness Directive
(AD)action. Current FAA ADs related to this subject are 2003-17-10 (which superseded AD 2003-15-01), 2004-23-16, 2005-24-08 and 2006-15-13. Cracking of the blade or hub can ultimately lead to blade release with potentially catastrophic consequences. * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0275; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-335-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0268, dated October 8, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Cracks have been found in the propeller blades and propeller hubs, for which ongoing controlling actions issued by the propeller TC [type certificate] holder (McCauley Propeller Systems) have been mandated by FAA Airworthiness Directive
(AD)action. Current FAA ADs related to this subject are 2003-17-10 (which superseded AD 2003-15-01), 2004-23-16, 2005-24-08 and 2006-15-13. Cracking of the blade or hub can ultimately lead to blade release with potentially catastrophic consequences. BAE Systems has concluded that safety margins can be further improved by introducing operating limitations that will prevent damaging stresses in the propeller assembly, instructing flight crews to place the propeller condition levers in the Flight position during all ground maneuvering. EASA concurs with this conclusion and this AD therefore requires the replacement of the Propeller Limitations Placard with a new one. Corrective actions include revising the airplane flight manual. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin J41-11-027, dated March 29, 2007; General Amendment G12, approved January 2007, to the Jetstream 4100 Series Airplane Flight Manual (AFM); and Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13, approved April 4, 2007, to the Jetstream 4100 Series AFM. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $25 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,295, or $185 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace Regional Aircraft):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0275; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-335-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 11: Placards and Markings. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Cracks have been found in the propeller blades and propeller hubs, for which ongoing controlling actions issued by the propeller TC [type certificate] holder (McCauley Propeller Systems) have been mandated by FAA Airworthiness Directive
(AD)action. Current FAA ADs related to this subject are 2003-17-10 (which superseded AD 2003-15-01), 2004-23-16, 2005-24-08 and 2006-15-13. Cracking of the blade or hub can ultimately lead to blade release with potentially catastrophic consequences. BAE Systems has concluded that safety margins can be further improved by introducing operating limitations that will prevent damaging stresses in the propeller assembly, instructing flight crews to place the propeller condition levers in the Flight position during all ground maneuvering. EASA concurs with this conclusion and this AD therefore requires the replacement of the Propeller Limitations Placard with a new one. Corrective actions include revising the airplane flight manual. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Replace the existing Propeller Limitations Placard in the cockpit with a new placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-11-027, dated March 29, 2007.
(2)Revise the BAE Jetstream Series 4100 Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)to include the information in BAE Jetstream Series 4100 General Amendment G12, approved January 2007, and BAE Jetstream Series 4100 Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13, approved April 4, 2007. General Amendment G12 describes a rolling take-off technique and the reduced possibility of landing with ice contaminating the wings, and adds a Gross Height/Pressure Altitude Conversion Chart. Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13 introduces procedures for placing the propeller condition levers in the Flight position during all ground maneuvering. Operate the airplane according to the procedures in General Amendment G12 and Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13. Note 1: This may be done by inserting copies of General Amendment G12 and Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13 into the AFM. When General Amendment G12 and Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13 have been included in general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in General Amendment G12 and Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13. 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1175; fax
(425)227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector
(PI)in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(h)Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0268, dated October 8, 2007; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-11-027, dated March 29, 2007; BAE Jetstream Series 4100 General Amendment G12, approved January 2007, to the Jetstream 4100 Series Airplane Flight Manual; and Advance Amendment Bulletin No. 13, approved April 4, 2007, to the Jetstream 4100 Series Airplane Flight Manual; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5000 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27011; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-175-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that currently requires inspecting to determine the part number and serial number of the fuel tank boost pumps and, for airplanes with affected pumps, revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM)and the FAA-approved maintenance program. The existing AD also provides for optional terminating action for compliance with the revisions to the AFM and the maintenance program. The original NPRM proposed to require modifying or replacing the fuel tank boost pumps, which would terminate the AFM limitations and the maintenance program revisions. The original NPRM resulted from a report that a fuel tank boost pump failed in service, due to a detached screw of the boost pump housing that created a short circuit between the stator and rotor of the boost pump motor and tripped a circuit breaker. This new action revises the original NPRM by excluding certain modified airplanes from the applicability, requiring the AFM/maintenance program revisions on additional airplanes, and requiring modification or replacement of additional fuel tank boost pumps. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent electrical arcing in the fuel tank boost pump motor, which, in the presence of a combustible air-fuel mixture in the pump, could result in an explosion and loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-27011; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-175-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)(the “original NPRM”) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 2006-12-02, amendment 39-14626 (71 FR 34814, June 16, 2006). The existing AD applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 25, 2007 (72 FR 3371). The original NPRM proposed to retain the existing AD's requirements (identifying airplanes with certain fuel tank boost pumps and, for those airplanes, revising the airplane flight manual
(AFM)and maintenance program, with optional terminating action). The original NPRM also proposed to require modifying or replacing the fuel tank boost pumps, which would terminate the AFM limitations and maintenance program revisions. Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the original NPRM, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has notified us that the unsafe condition could exist on airplanes with any Type 8410 fuel pump having part number (P/N) 568-1-27202-001, -002, or -005. (The original NPRM would have applied only to airplanes with Type 8410 fuel pumps having P/N 568-1-27202-005 with serial number 6137 and subsequent.) Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-28-1159, dated January 8, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for determining the type and part number of the fuel pumps, and for modifying or replacing certain fuel pumps. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2007-0218, dated August 10, 2007, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union. The service bulletin refers to EATON Service Bulletin 8410-28-05, dated October 2, 2006, as an additional source of service information for the actions associated with the modification. Airbus has also issued TR 4.03.00/28, Issue 02, dated May 18, 2007, to add reference to certain AMM chapters, to clarify the note regarding inadvertent operation with less than 2,000 kg (4,500 lb) of fuel in the center tank, and to clarify the instructions for operation of the center tank fuel pumps. Paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2006-12-02 refers to Airbus Temporary Revision
(TR)4.03.00/28, dated May 4, 2006. Comments There were no comments on the original NPRM. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM We have determined that the unsafe condition might exist on airplanes with any type 8410 fuel pumps having P/N 568-1-27202-001, -002, or -005, any serial number. It is therefore necessary to include airplanes with these fuel pumps among the group affected by the requirement to revise the AFM and maintenance program. We also find it necessary to mandate the modification/replacement of the affected fuel boost pumps specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1159 for all affected airplanes. We have also limited the proposed applicability to exclude airplanes already modified in production. The changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; we have therefore determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Explanation of “Concurrent” Actions Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1159 states that the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1153 (previously described in the original NPRM) must be done concurrently. Because the actions specified in both service bulletins accomplish the same result for airplanes equipped with Type 8410 fuel pumps having P/N 568-1-27202-005 with serial number 6137 and subsequent, this supplemental NPRM would consider a modification done before the effective date of the AD in accordance with Service Bulletin A320-28-1153 acceptable as terminating action for the proposed actions on airplanes equipped with Type 8410 fuel pumps having P/N 568-1-27202-005 with serial number 6137 and subsequent. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental NPRM. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Identification of boost pumps 1 $80 None $80 670 $53,600. Revisions to AFM and maintenance program 1 80 None 80 Up to 670 Up to $53,600. Modifications 3 80 (*) 240 Up to 670 Up to $160,800. * Eaton states that pumps will qualify for free repair. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-14626 (71 FR 34814, June 16, 2006) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27011; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-175-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 7, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2006-12-02. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category, except those airplanes on which Airbus modification 36734 or 37508 has been incorporated in production. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report that a fuel tank boost pump failed in service, due to a detached screw of the boost pump housing that created a short circuit between the stator and rotor of the boost pump motor and tripped a circuit breaker. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical arcing in the fuel tank boost pump motor, which, in the presence of a combustible air-fuel mixture in the pump, could result in an explosion and loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2006-12-02 Part and Serial Number Inspection
(f)Within 10 days after July 3, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-12-02), inspect to determine the part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) of each fuel tank boost pump installed in the wing and center fuel tanks. A review of maintenance records may be performed instead of the required inspection if the P/N and S/N of the fuel boost pump can be conclusively determined from that review. One approved method for conducting this inspection or records review is specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1152, dated May 5, 2006; or Revision 01, dated July 17, 2006. Revisions to Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)/Maintenance Program: P/N 568-1-27202-005 With S/Ns 6137 and Subsequent
(g)For airplanes equipped with one or more Eaton Aerospace Limited (formerly FR-HITEMP Limited) fuel boost pumps, having P/N 568-1-27202-005 with S/N 6137 and subsequent: Prior to further flight after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph
(f)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), as applicable of this AD, until the modifications/replacements required by paragraph
(j)of this AD have been done.
(1)Revise the Limitations section of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AFM and the FAA-approved maintenance program by incorporating the following. This may be accomplished by inserting copies of this AD into the AFM and the maintenance program. Apply the following procedure at each fuel loading: Refueling: Before refueling, all pumps must be turned off, in order to prevent them from automatically starting during the refueling process. Ground fuel transfer: For all aircraft, do not start a fuel transfer from any wing tank, if it contains less than 700 kg (1,550 lb) of fuel. For A318, A319, and A320 aircraft with a center tank, do not start a fuel transfer from the center tank, if it contains less than 2,000 kg (4,500 lb) of fuel. If a tank has less than the required quantity, it is necessary to add fuel (via a transfer from another tank or refueling) to enable a transfer to take place. Defueling: For all aircraft, when defueling the wings, do not start the fuel pumps if the fuel quantity in the inner tank (wing tank for A321) is below 700 kg (1,550 lb). If the fuel on the aircraft is not sufficient to achieve the required fuel distribution, then transfer fuel or refuel the aircraft to obtain the required fuel quantity in the wing tank. For A318, A319, and A320 aircraft with a center tank, when performing a pressure defuel of the center tank, make sure that the center tank contains at least 2,000 kg (4,500 lb) of fuel. If it has less than the required quantity, then transfer fuel to the center tank. Defuel the aircraft normally, and turn OFF the center tank pumps immediately after the FAULT light on the corresponding pushbutton-switch comes on.
(2)For all airplanes equipped with a center tank (modification 20024) excluding A321 models, revise the Limitations section of the AFM to incorporate the changes specified in Airbus Temporary Revision
(TR)4.03.00/28, dated May 4, 2006; or 4.03.00/28, Issue 02, dated May 18, 2007. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of the TR into the AFM. When general revisions of the AFM have been issued that incorporate the revisions specified in the TR, the copy of the TR may be removed from the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in TR 4.03.00/28. New Requirements of This AD Part and Serial Number Inspection
(h)For all airplanes: Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the type and part number of each fuel tank boost pump installed in the wing and center fuel tanks. A review of maintenance records may be performed instead of the required inspection if the part number and serial number of the fuel boost pump can be conclusively determined from that review. One approved method for conducting this inspection or records review is specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1159, dated January 8, 2007. Revisions to AFM/Maintenance Program: P/Ns 568-1-27202-001 and -002; and P/N 568-1-27202-005 With S/Ns Below 6137
(i)For airplanes equipped with one or more Eaton Aerospace Limited (formerly FR-HITEMP Limited) fuel boost pumps, having P/N 568-1-27202-001 or 568-1-27202-002; or P/N 568-1-27202-005 with any serial number below 6137: Before further flight after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph
(h)of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, until the modifications/replacements required by paragraph
(j)of this AD have been done. Terminating Action
(j)For airplanes equipped with one or more Eaton Aerospace Limited (formerly FR-HITEMP Limited) fuel boost pumps, having P/N 568-1-27202-001, -002, or -005: Within 5,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, modify or replace affected fuel boost pumps in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1159, dated January 8, 2007. Modification or replacement of all affected fuel tank boost pumps on an airplane terminates the requirements of this AD, and the limitations required by paragraph
(g)of this AD may be removed from the AFM and the maintenance program for that airplane. Note 1: For additional sources of service information for the fuel pump modification/replacement, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1159 refers to EATON Service Bulletin 8410-28-05, dated October 2, 2006. Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information
(k)Modification of a fuel pump before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1153, dated May 5, 2006, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph
(j)of this AD, for that pump only. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (l)(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 2006-12-02 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. Related Information
(m)European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2007-0218, dated August 10, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5017 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0296; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-307-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, and 20-E5 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is prompted by the discovery on an in-service Mystere-Falcon 20-C5 of a collapsed wing anti-ice flexible hose due to internal ply separation. Consequences on the aircraft can be insufficient anti-icing not detected by the monitoring system. Ice accretion on the wing might then occur and might jeopardize the aircraft flight performance and safety. The unsafe condition is undetected excessive ice build-up on the wings, which could interfere with controllability of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0296; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-307-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0227, dated September 17, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is prompted by the discovery on an in-service Mystere-Falcon 20-C5 of a collapsed wing anti-ice flexible hose due to internal ply separation. Consequences on the aircraft can be insufficient anti-icing not detected by the monitoring system. Ice accretion on the wing might then occur and might jeopardize the aircraft flight performance and safety. The present AD mandates replacement of the wing anti-ice flexible hoses by new ones of an improved design. The unsafe condition is undetected excessive ice build-up on the wings, which could interfere with controllability of the airplane. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F20-775, dated July 9, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 214 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $887 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $275,418, or $1,287 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Dassault Aviation (Formerly Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation (AMD/BA)):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0296; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-307-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, and 20-E5 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 30: Ice and Rain Protection. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: This Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is prompted by the discovery on an in-service Mystere-Falcon 20-C5 of a collapsed wing anti-ice flexible hose due to internal ply separation. Consequences on the aircraft can be insufficient anti-icing not detected by the monitoring system. Ice accretion on the wing might then occur and might jeopardize the aircraft flight performance and safety. The present AD mandates replacement of the wing anti-ice flexible hoses by new ones of an improved design. The unsafe condition is undetected excessive ice build-up on the wings, which could interfere with controllability of the airplane. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 7 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Inspect to determine whether any wing anti-ice flexible hose having part number (P/N) FAL1006 or P/N ARM224A is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the wing anti-ice flexible hose can be conclusively determined from that review. If any wing anti-ice flexible hose does not have P/N FAL1006 or P/N ARM224A, no further action is required by this AD for that hose, except as required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.
(2)Remove any wing anti-ice flexible hose having P/N FAL1006 or P/N ARM224A, and install a new hose having ESPA P/N 60503104509; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F20-775, dated July 9, 2007.
(3)As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install any flexible hose having P/N FAL1006 or P/N ARM224A on any Model Mystere-Falcon 20-C5, 20-D5, or 20-E5 airplane specified in the applicability of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI does not require inspecting to determine the part numbers of the wing anti-ice flexible hoses. This AD requires such an inspection. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: 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 2007-0227, dated September 17, 2007, and Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F20-775, dated July 9, 2007, for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5016 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: In service events have shown that, after implementation of Dassault Aviation SB F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal stabilizer. It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its structural integrity. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2007-0016, dated January 12, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: In service events have shown that, after implementation of Dassault Aviation SB F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal stabilizer. It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its structural integrity. The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is to secure safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking devices. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Dassault has issued Service Bulletins F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001, and F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 229 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 90 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,648,800, or $7,200 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Dassault Aviation:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by April 14, 2008. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those that have incorporated Modification M2275 during production or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-298 in service. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association
(ATA)of America Code 54: Nacelles/Pylons. Reason
(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: In service events have shown that, after implementation of Dassault Aviation SB F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal stabilizer. It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its structural integrity. The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive
(AD)is to secure safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking devices. Actions and Compliance
(f)Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD unless already done, do the following actions.
(1)Modify the existing engine cowls locking system in accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007.
(2)Before or concurrent with the modification required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the engine cowling attachments in accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001 (Modification M1579).
(3)Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Dassault Service Bulletins F2000-298, Revision 1, dated October 31, 2006, or Revision 2, dated April 12, 2007; and F2000-166 dated June 27, 2001; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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 2007-0016, dated January 12, 2007; and Dassault Service Bulletins F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001; and F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007; for related information. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-4999 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0288; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-25-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model 214B and B-1 Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
(BHTI)Model 214B and B-1 helicopters. The AD would require creating a component history card or equivalent for each pylon support spindle assembly (spindle), and inspecting certain spindles for any corrosion, or a nick, scratch, dent, or crack, and replacing any unairworthy spindle before further flight. This proposal is prompted by three in-flight failures of spindles that resulted in forced landings. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect damage in the radii or cracking of a spindle, and to prevent failure of a spindle and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically; • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, Texas 76101, telephone
(817)280-3391, fax
(817)280-6466. You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0170, telephone
(817)222-5447, fax
(817)222-5783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2008-0288, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-25-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of the docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion This document proposes adopting a new AD for BHTI Model 214B and B-1 helicopters. The AD would require, within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), creating a component history card or equivalent record for each spindle, and begin recording the spindle's TIS and number of take-offs and external load lifts accomplished with the spindle installed. It would also require a one-time visual inspection of the outer radius of the spindle for any corrosion or a nick, scratch, or dent, using a 3x-power or higher magnifying glass, and a one-time magnetic particle inspection of the spindles for a crack. The inspections would be required within 100 hours TIS, or 325 hours TIS since the last overhaul of the transmission assembly, whichever occurs later, for spindles with 5,000 or more hours TIS, or spindles for which the total number of hours TIS is unknown and were installed before the last overhaul of the transmission assembly. For spindles having 5,000 or more hours TIS, or spindles for which the total number of hours TIS is unknown, that were installed after the last overhaul of the transmission assembly, or the installation history is unknown, the inspections would be required within 100 hours TIS. The proposed AD would also require, before further flight, replacing any spindle on which any corrosion or a crack is discovered, and replacing any spindle that has a nick, scratch, or dent, or repairing the spindle if the damage is within the repair limits that are stated in the applicable component repair and overhaul manual. This proposal is prompted by three in-flight failures of the spindle, part number 214-030-606-005, which resulted in forced landings and one serious injury. All three helicopters were involved in logging operations, which put more torque cycles on the main rotor and transmission systems. The failures occurred at 694, 810, and 1,928 hours TIS since the last overhaul of the transmission assembly on helicopters having a total TIS of 3,500 to 17,000 hours. Currently, the spindles do not have a retirement life on either the Model 214B or 214B-1 helicopters, and the number of hours TIS for the spindles is not required to be tracked on a component history card or equivalent record. The current inspections specified in the maintenance manuals are a magnetic particle inspection at each 2,500 hours TIS transmission overhaul, and a visual inspection for mechanical or corrosion damage, using a 3x-power magnifying glass, at each main rotor tension-torsion strap change. A magnetic particle inspection is also required following the occurrence of a sudden stoppage of the main rotor system. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect damage in the radii or cracking of a spindle, and to prevent failure of a spindle and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The actions of this proposed AD are intended as interim actions until a retirement life for these spindles can be developed and new replacement spindles become available. This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, the proposed AD would require creating a component history card or equivalent for each spindle, inspecting certain spindles for any corrosion, or a nick, scratch, dent, or crack, and replacing any unairworthy spindle before further flight. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 10 helicopters of U.S. registry, and the proposed actions would take approximately: • 15 work hours to remove and replace a set of spindles for inspecting; • 2 work hours to conduct a magnetic particle inspection; and • 15 work hours to replace a set of spindles at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $10,735 for a set of spindles. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators would be $25,535, assuming the inspections are performed once for each helicopter and one set of spindles is replaced. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. Go to the government-wide rulemaking Web site at: *http://www.regulations.gov* to examine the draft economic evaluation. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0288; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-25-AD. Applicability Model 214B and B-1 helicopters, with pylon support spindle assembly (spindle), part number 214-030-606-005, installed, certificated in any category. Compliance Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. To detect damage in the radii or cracking of a spindle, and to prevent failure of a spindle and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a)Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(1)Create a component history card or equivalent record for each spindle, stating the spindle's serial number. Begin recording the number of hours TIS, and the number of take-offs and external load lifts. An external load lift occurs when a load is picked up at one location and is released at another location.
(2)Review the helicopter records to determine if there has been a sudden stoppage of the main rotor system, or any hard landing, on a helicopter with any affected spindle installed and record any such events on the component history card or equivalent record.
(b)Record all conditional inspections of each spindle on the component history card or equivalent record. A sudden stoppage of the main rotor system is defined as any rapid deceleration of the drive system, whether caused by seizure within the helicopter transmission or by contact of a main rotor blade with the ground, water, snow, dense vegetation, or other object of sufficient inertia to cause rapid deceleration.
(c)For each spindle with 5,000 or more hours TIS, or any spindle for which the number of hours TIS is unknown, perform the inspections in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD within the hours TIS specified in Table 1 of this AD: Table 1 For spindles, part number 214-030-606-005, that were installed on the transmission assembly: Inspect within: Before the last overhaul of the transmission assembly 100 hours TIS or 325 hours TIS since the last overhaul of the transmission assembly, whichever occurs later. After the last overhaul of the transmission assembly or for which the installation history is unknown 100 hours TIS.
(1)Visually inspect each outer radius of the spindle for any corrosion, or a nick, scratch, or dent, using a 3x-power or higher magnifying glass; and
(2)Conduct a magnetic particle inspection of the spindle for a crack.
(d)Before further flight, if a crack or any corrosion is found, replace the spindle with an airworthy spindle.
(e)Before further flight, replace any spindle that has a nick, scratch, or dent with an airworthy spindle, or repair it if it is within the repair limits. Note 2: The repair limits are specified in the applicable component repair and overhaul manual.
(f)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Michael Kohner, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0170, telephone
(817)222-5447, fax
(817)222-5783, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 3, 2008. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5060 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0287; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-15-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc. Model 369A, OH-6A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, and 369HS Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for MD Helicopters, Inc.
(MDHI)Model 369A, OH-6A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, and 369HS helicopters. The proposed AD would require repetitive tap inspections of each tail rotor (T/R) blade abrasion strip. This proposal is prompted by an incident in which an abrasion strip separated from a T/R blade. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent disbonding and subsequent separation of an abrasion strip from a T/R blade, which could result in vibration, loss of the T/R, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may get the Helicopter Technology Company, LLC
(HTC)service information identified in this proposed AD from, HTC, 12902 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, 90061, telephone
(310)523-2750, fax
(310)523-2745, or on the Internet at *http://www.helicoptertech.com* . The service information referenced in Note 2 of this proposed AD may be obtained from MD Helicopters Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, Arizona 85215-9734, telephone
(800)388-3378, fax
(480)346-6813, or on the Internet at *http://www.mdhelicopters.com* . You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cecil, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone
(562)627-5228, fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2008-0287, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-15-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of the docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Examining the Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone
(800)647-5527) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion This document proposes adopting a new AD for MDHI Model 369A, OH-6A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, and 369HS helicopters, with any of the following T/R blades installed: • HTC part number (P/N) 500P3100-101 and -103, or MDHI P/N 369D21640-501, -503, and -505. • HTC P/N 500P3100-301 and -303, or MDHI P/N 369D21641-501, -503, and -505. • HTC P/N 500P3300-501 and -503, or MDHI P/N 369D21643-501, -503, and -505. • HTC P/N 500P3500-701 and -703, or MDHI P/N 369D21642-501, -503, and -505. Note: An “M” or an “I” painted on the root of the T/R blade indicates compliance to an Alternate Method of Compliance
(AMOC)to AD 2003-08-51, (Docket No. 2003-SW-17-AD, Amendment 39-13215 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2008), corrected at 68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003, issued by the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (LAACO) on June 13, 2003 to HTC. The AMOC addressed shot peening of the pitch horn of the T/R assembly. The proposed AD would require, within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, tap inspections of the upper and lower surfaces of each T/R blade abrasion strip using a coin (United States 25-cent piece or equivalent), or a small brass, mild steel, or aluminum hammer, to detect bonding voids that exceed 0.2 square inch in size with a minimum of 1.0 inch between voids, at least 75 percent of the bonded area of the abrasion strip being free from voids, and no voids at the edge of the abrasion strip. Modifying each T/R blade in accordance with FAA-approved data by installing a titanium rivet in the tip of the outboard end of each T/R blade and painting a “T” in the root-end of the T/R blade would be considered terminating action for the AD. This proposal is prompted by an incident in which an abrasion strip separated from a T/R blade during flight. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent disbonding and subsequent separation of an abrasion strip from a T/R blade, which could result in vibration, loss of the T/R, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. We have reviewed the following service information: • HTC Mandatory SB Notice No. 3100-4R4, dated May 10, 2006, which describes procedures for periodic inspection of the abrasion strip-to-skin bond integrity on each T/R blade, and modifying each T/R blade by installing a titanium rivet, P/N 500P3124-13, in the tip of the T/R blade, and painting a “T” in the root-end of the T/R blade in accordance with applicable engineering drawings or standard repair instructions; and • MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369D-203R1, SB369E-097R1, SB369F-082R1, and SB369H-246R1, dated January 23, 2006, which describes procedures for periodic inspections of the T/R abrasion strip-to-skin bond integrity and modification of the T/R blade by HTC to install a titanium rivet in the tip of the T/R blade. This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs. Therefore, the proposed AD would require, within 25 hours TIS, unless accomplished previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, tap inspections of the upper and lower surfaces of each T/R blade abrasion strip using a coin (United States 25 cent piece or equivalent) or a small brass, mild steel, or aluminum hammer, to detect bonding voids in accordance with Part 1—Inspection of the HTC Mandatory Service Bulletin Notice No. 3100-4R4, dated May 10, 2006. Modifying each T/R blade by installing a titanium rivet, P/N 500P3124-13, in the tip of the T/R blade and painting a “T” in the root-end of the T/R blade would be a terminating action for this AD. The actions would be required to be accomplished by following the specified portions of the HTC service bulletin described previously. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 718 helicopters of U.S. registry. • If operators conduct the repetitive inspections required by this AD instead of modifying their T/R blades by installing a titanium rivet, the estimated costs per year would be $229,760 per year, assuming: • 24 inspections per year per helicopter (600 hours TIS per 25 hour TIS inspection), * Labor of 5 minutes per T/R blade (10 minutes ( 1/6 hour) per helicopter), and • An average labor rate of $80 per work hour. • If operators elect to implement the terminating action by installing a titanium rivet in each T/R blade, the estimated total cost would be $244,120, assuming: • The cost of removing, reinstalling, and balancing the 2-T/R blade set for the entire fleet would be $114,880, assuming that it would take 2 work hours per helicopter to perform these actions at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, and • The cost of installing the rivet in each T/R blade in the fleet would be $129,240, which includes the cost of $10 per rivet ($20 per helicopter), 1 work hour per T/R blade (2 work hours per helicopter) to install a rivet, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the AD Docket to examine the draft economic evaluation. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI):** Docket No. FAA-2008-0287; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-15-AD. Applicability Model 369A, OH-6A, 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, and 369HS, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor (T/R) blade installed as follows including all serial numbers and those T/R blades with an “M” or an “I” painted on the T/R blade root: • Helicopter Technology Company, LLC
(HTC)part number (P/N) 500P3100-101 and -103, or MDHI P/N 369D21640-501, -503, and -505. • HTC P/N 500P3100-301 and -303, or MDHI P/N 369D21641-501, -503, and -505. • HTC P/N 500P3300-501 and -503, or MDHI P/N 369D21643-501, -503, and -505. • HTC P/N 500P3500-701 and -703, or MDHI P/N 369D21642-501, -503, and -505. Note 1: An “M” or an “I” painted on the root of the T/R blade indicates compliance to an Alternate Method of Compliance
(AMOC)to Emergency AD 2003-08-51 (Docket No. 2003-SW-17-AD, Amendment 39-13215, April 15, 2003), issued by the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (LAACO) on June 13, 2003 to HTC. The AMOC addressed shot peening of the pitch horn of the T/R assembly. Compliance Required as indicated. To prevent disbonding and subsequent separation of an abrasion strip from a T/R blade, which could result in vibration, loss of the T/R, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a)Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless accomplished previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, inspect the abrasion strip-to-skin bond integrity on each T/R blade using a tap test method in accordance with Part 1—Inspection, in Helicopter Technology Company, LLC
(HTC)Mandatory Service Bulletin Notice No. 3100-4R4, dated May 10, 2006 (SB). Note 2: MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369D-203R1, SB369E-097R1, SB369F-082R1, and SB369H-246R1, dated January 23, 2006, pertain to the subject of this AD.
(b)Modifying each T/R blade in accordance with FAA-approved data by installing a titanium rivet at the outboard end and painting the letter “T” on the root-end of the T/R blade to indicate the modification has been accomplished is considered a terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
(c)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: John Cecil, Aviation Safety Engineer, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone
(562)627-5228, fax
(562)627-5210, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(d)Special flight permits will not be issued. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 4, 2008. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-5068 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0072; FRL-8539-4 RIN 2060-069 In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles; Emission Measurement Accuracy Margins for Portable Emission Measurement Systems and Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In a rule published on June 14, 2005, EPA established a manufacturer-run, in-use testing program for heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The program requires engine manufacturers to measure exhaust emissions from their diesel engines using portable emissions measurement systems during real-world operation. At the time the rule was promulgated, EPA established interim emission measurement “accuracy” margins for the requisite portable emission measurement devices pending the development of final accuracy margins through a comprehensive research program. This notice proposes to adopt the resulting final accuracy margins for gaseous pollutants. Also, this rule proposes to make several changes to the program in the early years of in-use testing. First, we are proposing to eliminate the first calendar year, i.e., 2006, of the two-year pilot program for particulate emissions
(PM)in response to engine manufacturers' concerns, which primarily relate to the availability and efficacy of the requisite portable measurement systems
(PEMS)for that pollutant. Second, due to a delay in developing the final accuracy margin for PM under the aforementioned comprehensive research program, we are proposing to delay the first year of the fully enforceable PM test program from the 2008 calendar year to the 2009 calendar year. During the 2008 calendar year, there will be another year of pilot program testing for that pollutant. Third, and finally, we are proposing to extend the normal period for reporting in-use test results and allowing certain short-term changes in how vehicles are recruited and tested. These proposed revisions are primarily intended to address delays in initiating the gaseous emission and PM pilot programs, manufacturers' concerns regarding the schedule for initial purchases of PM measurement systems, and manufacturers' concerns regarding potential difficulties of initially instrumenting vehicles with these units. DATES: Written comments must be received by April 14, 2008. Request for a public hearing must be received by March 28, 2008. If we receive a request for a public hearing, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and the timing of a new deadline for public comments. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0072, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.* • *Fax:*
(202)566-9744. • *Mail:* Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include two copies. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0072. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *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 *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. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/oar/dockets.html* . *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wilcox, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734)214-4390; fax number:
(734)214-4939; e-mail address: *wilcox.rich@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register,** we are making these revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view these revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for these revisions in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on the rule, we will withdraw the direct final rule. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. II. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action will affect companies that manufacture and certify heavy-duty diesel engines and vehicles for use on the highway. Category NAICS Code a Examples of potentially affected entities Industry 336112 Engine and Truck Manufacturers. 336120 Industry 811112 Independent commercial importers of vehicles and parts. 81198 a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. III. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? *A. Submitting CBI.* Do not submit this information to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. *B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. IV. Summary of Rule The manufacturer-run, in-use testing program for heavy-duty diesel vehicles that are used on the highway was promulgated in 2005 to monitor the emissions performance of the engines used in those vehicles when operated under a wide range of real world driving conditions 1 The program is specifically intended to monitor compliance with the applicable Not-to-Exceed
(NTE)exhaust emission standards for non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM). It requires each manufacturer of heavy-duty highway diesel engines to assess the in-use exhaust emissions from their engines using onboard, portable emission measurement systems during typical operation while on the road. 1 See “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles, 70 FR 34594 (June 14, 2005).” A. Gaseous Emission Measurement Margins for Manufacturer-Run, In-Use Testing For the purposes of the in-use testing program, it was necessary to establish emission measurement “accuracy” margins for the portable emission measurement system. 2 They are primarily designed to account for any differences between the accuracy of the onboard, portable emission measurement instruments and the accuracy of the instruments used during laboratory testing in the emissions certification process. When the in-use testing program was first established in 2005, there was uncertainty regarding what specific accuracy margins should be used in the in-use testing program, since the portable measurement systems had not been rigorously tested at that time. As a result, we promulgated interim accuracy allowances for use in the pilot programs for gaseous pollutants and PM. 3 2 The emission measurement accuracy margin added to the value of the applicable NTE standard and any in-use compliance testing margin that is already allowed by the regulations to determine the numerical compliance limit, i.e., NTE threshold, which is used in the in-use testing program. 3 The in-use testing requirements consist of a two-year pilot program for gaseous emissions (i.e., NMHC, No <sup>X</sup> , and CO) in calendar years 2005 and 2006, and calendar years 2006 and 2007 for PM emissions. This NPRM proposes to change the years of the PM pilot program to calendar years 2007 and 2008. The programs are fully enforceable after their respective pilot program ends. Shortly before the in-use test program was promulgated, EPA entered into an memorandum of agreement
(MOA)with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB)and the manufacturers of heavy-duty highway diesel engines (through the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)) to develop “data driven” emission measurement allowances through a comprehensive research, development, and demonstration program for the enforceable programs, i.e., beginning in the 2007 calendar year for gaseous emissions and the 2008 calendar year for PM. The overall test program was designed to be completed in two phases. The first phase addressed gaseous emission accuracy margins and the second phase addressed PM emission accuracy margins. All parties agreed to support the final accuracy margins assuming that the agreed upon test program was followed and the results incorporated into a direct final rulemaking, or a subsequent final rulemaking (preceded by proposed rulemaking) if adverse comment was received on the direct final rule. The cooperative test program and additional follow-on development work for gaseous emissions have now been completed, and a resultant set of final emission measurement accuracy margins has been identified for use in the fully enforceable program that begins in 2007. The gaseous emission measurements accuracy margins vary based on the model year of the engine and the emission calculation methodology that is used to determine the final grams/brake horsepower-hour emission. The proposed values are shown in Table 1. Table 1.—Final Measurement Accuracy Margins for the Enforceable Gaseous Emissions In-Use Testing Program Pollutant Accuracy margins (g/bhp-hr) 2007-2009 model year engines Method 1 only Methods 2 and 3 2010 and later model year engines All methods NMHC 0.02 0.01 0.01 CO 0.5 0.25 0.25 NO <sup>X</sup> 0.45 0.15 0.15 B. NMHC NO *x* In-Use Testing Accuracy Margins The June 2005 final rule that implemented the in-use testing program addressed accuracy margins for each of the gaseous pollutants and their associated individual standards, i.e., NMHC, NA <sup>X</sup> , and CO. The MOA and subsequent gaseous emissions test program also focused on identifying the final accuracy margins for these individual pollutants. In developing the original rule and subsequent test program, however, we failed to recognize that 2004 through 2006 model year engine families are actually certified to a combined NO <sup>X</sup> plus NMHC standard under § 86.004-11(a)(l) of the applicable regulations. Furthermore, under the “phase-in options” of § 86.007-11(g)(l) an engine manufacturer may optionally certify some of its production in model years 2007 through 2009 to the combined NO <sup>X</sup> plus NMHC standard for 2006 model year engines under § 86.2004-11, rather than the otherwise applicable individual NO <sup>X</sup> and NMHC standards. Therefore, we are correcting this oversight by proposing in-use testing accuracy margins for the combined NO <sup>X</sup> plus NMHC standard. The methodology for determining an accuracy margin for the combined NO <sup>X</sup> plus NMHC emission standard is the same as that used to determine the numerical value of the combined standard itself. Specifically, the individual NO <sup>X</sup> and NMHC accuracy margins are simply added together to provide a single value. Therefore, for 2004-2007 model year engines that may be tested under the gaseous emission pilot program for the 2006 and 2007 calendar years, we propose that the combined accuracy margin is the sum of the individual NO <sup>X</sup> and NMHC values already contained in § 86.1912, or 0.67 g/bhp-hr. For engines tested in the enforceable program that begins in the 2007 calendar year and applies to 2007 and later model year diesel engines, the combined NO <sup>X</sup> plus NMHC accuracy margins, using the individual values from Table 1, are shown in Table 2. Table 2.—Final Combined NO <sup>X</sup> Plus NMHC Measurement Accuracy Margins for the Enforceable Gaseous Emissions In-Use Testing Program Pollutant Accuracy margins 2007-2009 model year engines (g/bhp-hr) Method 1 only Methods 2 and 3 NO <sup>X</sup> + NMHC 0.47 0.16 C. Delaying the Enforceable PM Program From 2008 to 2009 The MOA described in section IV.A. acknowledged that in order to promulgate new measurement accuracy margins with adequate lead time to begin the 2008 enforceable PM I program, certain key milestone dates in the test program had to be achieved. Contingencies for missing the final delivery date were specified in the MOA and in the June 2005 final rulemaking. 4 Most relevant to today's proposal was that if the final values and documentation were delayed more than three months from November 1, 2007 then the PM pilot program would continue for calendar year 2008 in place of the fully enforceable program for that year. 4 See 40 CFR 86.1935. Completing the PM test program on schedule required that the initial work be conducted in parallel with the ongoing gaseous emission test program Using the same contractors and personnel from EPA, CARB, and the engine manufacturers. Due to unexpected issues in the gaseous emission test program and the lack of other resources, all work on the PM test plan and subsequent test program had to be postponed until recently. The end result of this postponement is that the final accuracy margin for PM will be delayed by approximately one year. Accordingly, the MOA and in-use test program regulations require that the first year of the previously adopted enforceable program (calendar year 2008) be placed into abeyance and the PM pilot program continued for that year. Hence, we are proposing to modify the in-use testing regulations so that the PM pilot program extends into 2008 and the fully enforceable PM program begins in 2009. D. Suspending the 2006 PM Pilot Program The in-use testing program, as originally adopted in June 2005, included a two-year pilot (i.e., demonstration) program for PM emissions in calendar years 2006 and 2007. In establishing this requirement, EPA noted that the onboard measurement of PM emissions was significantly more challenging than for gaseous emissions, and that further development of the requisite portable measurement systems would be needed. We also noted our expectation that engine manufacturers would use “best available” prototype systems that were capable of measuring PM emissions as required. Nonetheless, in recognition of the then remaining technical uncertainties, we added a provision to the regulations that would suspend the in-use test program as it applied to PM measurement if we discovered fundamental technical problems with portable in-use PM measurement systems that could not be resolvable in a reasonable time. In a letter dated January 4, 2007, EMA requested that the first year of the two-year PM pilot program be held in abeyance. The principle reasons cited were associated with certain technical concerns primarily relating to the availability and efficacy of the requisite portable measurement systems for that pollutant. In a subsequent letter dated April 11, 2007, EMA more specifically detailed its concerns with currently available portable PM measurement systems. The trade group also argued that it would be better to take the time now to develop better portable PM measurement devices in order to ensure a successful launch of the fully enforceable program in 2009. Finally, EMA noted that even with the suspension of the 2006 PM pilot program, there would still be a full two years of the PM pilot as originally called for in the regulations. After carefully considering EMA's concerns, we agree that it is better to eliminate the 2006 calendar year PM pilot program in order to focus our collective efforts on improving the current portable PM measurement systems and conducting the cooperative research and deve1opment program for this pollutant. Therefore, we are proposing such a delay. E. Revised Schedules and Testing Flexibilities the for the 2005 Through 2009 In-Use Test Programs The June 2005 final rule that established the heavy-duty in-use test program stated that EPA would typically select engine families for testing in June of each calendar year. Further, the regulations allowed 18 months from the time engine families were designated for engine manufacturers to complete all testing and report the results to EPA. Subsequent to the final rule, we concluded that certain adjustments to the test schedules were necessary in the early years of the program to address:
(1)Delays in initiating certain aspects of the program,
(2)manufacturers' concerns regarding the schedule for initial purchases of PM measurement systems, and
(3)manufacturers' concerns instrumenting test vehicles for PM emission testing in the early years of the program. Our proposed adjustments for engine family designation and reporting dates are summarized in Table 3, which also reflect the other proposed programmatic revisions discussed previously. Table 3.—Revised Engine Family Designation and Reporting Schedules Program Designate families Original Revised Report due Original Revised 2005 Gaseous Pilot 06/2005 Unchanged 11/2006 11/2007. 2006 Gaseous Pilot 06/2006 12/2006 11/2007 11/2008. 2007 Gaseous Enforceable 06/2007 12/2007 11/2008 11/2009. 2007 PM Pilot 06/2007 12/2007 11/2008 05/2010. 2008 Gaseous Enforceable 06/2008 09/2008 11/2009 03/2010. 2008 PM Pilot 06/2008 09/2008 11/2009 09/2010. 2009 Gaseous Enforceable 06/2009 Unchanged 11/2010 04/2011. 2009 PM Enforceable 06/2009 Unchanged 11/2010 04/2011. 2010 Gaseous Enforceable 06/2010 Unchanged 11/2011 Unchanged. 2010 PM Enforceable 06/2010 Unchanged 11/2011 Unchanged. * For illustration only. The 2010 program dates are as originally promulgated. EF. Removing the Gaseous Accuracy Test Program from the Regulations We are proposing to delete the references in § 86.1935 that pertain to the final report for gaseous emission accuracy margins and the consequences that would ensue if the report was delayed beyond certain dates. These provisions are no longer needed because final accuracy margins for gaseous pollutants are being proposed in this rulemaking. The proposed revised section, therefore, would appropriately focus on the ongoing development of accuracy margins for PM emissions. For additional discussion of the proposed rule changes, see the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** . This proposal incorporates by reference all the reasoning, explanation, and regulatory text from the direct final rule. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order
(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This proposed rule merely replaces the interim gaseous emission measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values and delays the in-use testing implementation dates for the fully enforceable PM test program as either envisioned or allowed for in the original final rule. This proposal also grants a request from the affected engine manufacturers for a one year delay in the start of the pilot testing program for PM. Further, here are no costs associated with this rule beyond those envisioned in the original rule. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not include any new collection requirements, as it acts to replace interim gaseous emission measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values and delays the implementation schedule for the in-use PM testing program. There are no new paperwork requirements associated with this rule. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is, not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business that meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 USC 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule acts to replace interim gaseous emission measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values and delays the implementation schedule for the in-use PM testing program. We have, therefore, concluded that today's proposal will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities and will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This proposed rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. Nothing in the proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million to the private sector in any single year. This proposed rule acts to replace interim gaseous emission measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values and delays the implementation schedule for the in-use PM testing program. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of UMRA policy, E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This proposed rule merely replaces interim measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values as envisioned in the original rule. See the direct final rule EP A has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13132. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule does not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments, Further, no circumstances specific to such communities exist that would cause an impact on these communities beyond those discussed in the other sections of this rule. This proposed rule merely replaces interim gaseous emission measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values and delays the implementation schedule for the in-use PM testing program. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13132. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant, and does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This proposed rule merely replaces interim gaseous emission measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values and delays the implementation schedule for the in-use PM testing program. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. This proposed rule merely replaces interim gaseous emission measurement accuracy allowances for portable emission measurement systems with final values and delays the implementation schedule for the in-use PM testing program. Thus, we have determined that the requirements of the NTTAA do not apply. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of NTTAA policy. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and Adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. See the direct final rule EPA has published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's **Federal Register** for a more extensive discussion of Executive Order 13045. K. Statutory Authority, The statutory authority for this action comes from 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. C. 7607(d). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: February 28, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. 08-1017 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
25 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 430
  • 42 USC 6291-6309
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • Pub. L. 110-140
  • 10 CFR 430.22
  • 10 CFR 430.22(b)(2)
  • 10 CFR 430.22(b)(3)
  • 10 CFR 430.22(a)(2)
  • Pub. L. 102-486
  • 10 CFR 430.24(r)(1)
  • 10 CFR 1021
  • 48 CFR 9
  • 10 CFR 600
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • Pub. L. 95-91
  • Pub. L. 93-275
  • Pub. L. 95-70
  • 15 CFR 285
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 40 CFR 86
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 86.1935
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 42 USC 7401-7671q
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 6291
U.S.C.§ 6293
U.S.C.§ 6295
C.F.R.§ 430.2
C.F.R.§ 430.23
Cite10 CFR 430
Cite42 USC 6291-6309
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-58
Cites 50 · 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.