60244 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27560; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–211–AD; Amendment 

39–15198; AD 2007–19–07] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 757–200, –200PF, and 

–200CB series airplanes. This AD 

requires inspections to detect scribe 

lines and cracks of the fuselage skin, lap 

joints, circumferential butt splice strap, 

and external and internal approved 

repairs; and related investigative/ 

corrective actions if necessary. This AD 

results from reports of scribe lines 

adjacent to the skin lap joints. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct 

cracks, which could grow and cause 

rapid decompression of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 28, 2007. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of November 28, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, for service 

information identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6450; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or 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 on the 

ground floor of the West Building at the 

DOT street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain Boeing Model 757–200, 

–200PF, and –200CB series airplanes. 

That NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on March 15, 2007 (72 

FR 12125). That NPRM proposed to 

require inspections to detect scribe lines 

and cracks of the fuselage skin, lap 

joints, circumferential butt splice strap, 

and external and internal approved 

repairs; and related investigative/ 

corrective actions if necessary. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Support for the NPRM 

Boeing, Continental Airlines (CAL), 

and the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) support the NPRM. 

Request To Extend Rulemaking to 

Additional Airplanes 

The NTSB asserts that scribe lines 

could be present on virtually every 

pressurized airplane in service. The 

NTSB requests that we examine and 

expedite similar rulemaking for other 

makes and models of airplanes in 

addition to the Model 757 airplanes 

subject to the NPRM. 

We acknowledge the NTSB’s 

concerns. The unsafe condition 

identified in this action is a long-term 

durability issue that might not be 

limited to any particular airplane 

model. The potential consequences for 

each airplane model will vary with each 

model’s design characteristics and 

operating conditions. To this end, we 

have coordinated efforts with other 

governing regulatory agencies and other 

manufacturers to investigate the 

existence of scribe lines on other 

airplanes and any potential safety risks 

associated with such scribe lines. As a 

result of these efforts, we might consider 

similar rulemaking on other airplanes. 

Pending the inspection results 

provided in the reports required by this 

AD, we might consider further 

rulemaking to require inspections on 

Model 757–300 airplanes. And we are 

considering similar rulemaking for 

Boeing Model 747 airplanes. We have 

already issued an AD for all Boeing 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes (AD 

2006–07–12, amendment 39–14539, 71 

FR 16211, March 31, 2006). 

Request To Revise Compliance Time 

Continental Airlines (CAL) believes 

that the accomplishment timetables in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–53A0092, 

Revision 1, dated January 10, 2007, for 

approved repairs are overly 

conservative. CAL notes that scribe lines 

on flush repairs are not considered 

critical on Model 737 airplanes, and AD 

2006–07–12 does not require similar 

inspections for those airplanes. CAL 

compares compliance times for initial 

scribe line inspections with those for 

approved repair inspections, and asserts 

that the proposed repair inspection 

would occur in a line environment 

without benefit of the support offered 

during a heavy maintenance check. CAL 

notes that no crack attributable to scribe 

lines has ever been found on the Model 

757 fleet and that the Model 757 scribe 

line program is extrapolated from the 

Model 737 program; in the Model 737 

scribe line inspection program all 

approved repair inspections generally 

coincide in accomplishment timeframe 

with the main scribe line program. 

Therefore CAL requests that we revise 

the accomplishment timetables of the 

approved repair section of the 757 

scribe line program to better coincide 

with the mainline program. 

We disagree with the request. The 

timetables, developed by Boeing in 

cooperation with the 757 Scribe Line 

Working Group, are based on extensive 

technical evaluation and analysis to 

reflect the differences in construction 

between the two models. In determining 

the appropriateness of the proposed 

compliance times, we considered the 

average utilization rate of the affected 

fleet, the practical aspects of an orderly 

inspection of the fleet during regular 

maintenance periods. We have 

determined that the compliance times, 

as proposed, will ensure an acceptable 

level of safety. We have not changed the 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Request for Limited Return to Service 

(LRTS) Program for Zone C 

Continental Airlines (CAL) notes that 

Table 5 (paragraph 1.E.) of the service 

bulletin specifies inspections for scribe 

lines on approved repairs in Zone C but 

provides no limited return to service 

(LRTS) program if scribe lines are 

found. CAL notes that these inspections 

will be required much earlier than other 

inspections in the program. Due to their 

urgent nature, these inspections will be 

required to be done in a line 

maintenance environment, instead of a 

longer span heavy check. CAL 

concludes that the lack of a readily 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60245 

available approved LRTS for any scribe 

lines found during these inspections 

would have a significantly negative 

impact on its operation. CAL believes 

that typical scribe lines found on such 

repairs should have an approved LRTS 

for several reasons. No scribe lines on 

approved repairs have resulted in cracks 

on the Model 757 fleet. Approved 

repairs on Model 757 skins would by 

definition include enough static 

strength to contain the damage to the 

local area, as well as damage tolerance 

analysis as mandated by section 25.571 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR 25.571). Even if analysis is not 

ready for such repairs, CAL suggests 

imposing the most conservative 

inspection interval of 250 flight cycles, 

as specified in the Model 737 LRTS 

program, so that an airline could 

continue its operation until a more 

permanent disposition can be approved 

by Boeing and the FAA. 

We disagree. Providing repair 

instructions in the service bulletin for 

all possible repair conditions is not 

feasible. The LRTS program must be 

customized for individual repair 

configurations. For Zone C, the service 

bulletin specifies contacting Boeing for 

additional analysis and an LRTS 

program. We have not changed the final 

rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Revise LRTS Inspection 

Interval 

Because no cracking has been found 

on Model 757 airplanes, American 

Airlines requests that we relax the 

proposed interval for the LRTS 

inspections. First, the commenter 

requests that we revise the NPRM to 

allow operators to inspect at the next 

scheduled C-check (as an option to the 

proposed flight-cycle interval). Second, 

the commenter requests that subsequent 

inspections be done within an 

applicable flight-cycle interval, or at the 

next scheduled C-check after the last 

LRTS inspection. Third, the commenter 

requests that we extend the interval for 

an LRTS inspection, which includes the 

decal inspection area in Zone C, from 

1,000 flight cycles, which the 

commenter finds overly frequent, to 

1,500 flight cycles, which is in line with 

the other intervals for similar inspection 

areas. 

We disagree with the requests. The 

intervals were developed by Boeing in 

conjunction with the Model 757 

scribeline working group based on 

analysis and technical evaluations to 

reflect the Model 757’s unique 

construction details and stresses. We 

have determined that the proposed 

compliance times represent the 

maximum intervals allowable for 

affected airplanes to continue to safely 

operate before the inspections are done. 

Since maintenance schedules vary 

among operators, there would be no 

assurance that the airplane would be 

inspected during the maximum interval 

if we were to allow operators the option 

of inspecting at the next C-check. We 

have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. 

Request for Repair Instructions 

Air Transport Association (ATA), on 

behalf of its member American Airlines, 

requests that repair instructions be 

included in the service bulletin because 

requiring FAA approval of each specific 

repair adds undue complexity and delay 

to the process. 

We disagree. Each repair will likely be 

unique and tailored for specific 

conditions. It would be impossible to 

identify repairs that would adequately 

address all possible findings in all 

possible locations. We have not changed 

the final rule regarding this issue. 

Request To Clarify Compliance Times 

ATA, on behalf of American Airlines, 

considers the compliance time 

information specified in the NPRM 

vague and requests that we revise the 

NPRM to simply state that the 

compliance times specified in the 

service bulletin will be mandated by the 

AD. 

We disagree with the need to clarify 

the compliance times in the NPRM. 

Paragraph 1.E. is the standard location 

of compliance time information in a 

service bulletin. The NPRM specified 

doing the actions ‘‘within the applicable 

times specified in paragraph 1.E. of the 

service bulletin.’’ The times specified in 

the service bulletin are clear and 

specific. We have not changed the final 

rule regarding this issue. 

Request for Alternative Inspection 

Method: Zones A and B 

Northwest Airlines (NWA) requests 

an alternative inspection method for the 

inspections specified in the NPRM for 

the lap joints and external repairs in 

Zones A and B. NWA’s proposal would 

allow operators to do an ultrasonic 

phased-array inspection without 

stripping the paint from the affected 

locations, and eventually (before 50,000 

total flight cycles or at the next 

scheduled fuselage paint removal, 

whichever occurs first) stripping the 

paint from affected locations and 

inspecting for scribe lines as specified 

in the service bulletin. (The ultrasonic 

phased-array inspection is described in 

the Boeing 757 NDT Manual, Part 4, 

Section 53–00–02.) NWA believes that 

its proposal would eliminate the need to 

strip the paint, and yet allow the 

detection of cracks before they reach an 

unacceptable length, thereby providing 

an acceptable level of safety. NWA adds 

that these procedures would delay the 

unsightly stripping of selected lap splice 

areas on an airplane until repainting the 

entire fuselage was necessary. 

We disagree with the request. The fay 

surface sealant in the lap joints 

significantly attenuates the ultrasonic 

signal, and would affect the accuracy of 

the inspection results. This assessment 

has been coordinated with Boeing. 

Further, ultrasonic inspections can 

detect only cracks—not scribe lines. We 

have not changed the final rule 

regarding this issue. However, 

paragraph (j) of the final rule provides 

operators the opportunity to request an 

alternative method of compliance if the 

request includes data that prove that the 

new method would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. 

Request for Alternative Inspection 

Method: Parts 9 and 10 

Northwest Airlines (NWA) requests 

that we revise the proposed 

requirements for the scribe line 

inspection and LRTS program (Part 9 

and Part 10, respectively, of the service 

bulletin). Part 9 and Part 10 specify 

surface high frequency eddy current 

(HFEC) inspections from the butt joint 

forward of the affected scribe line to the 

butt joint aft of the affected scribe line, 

using the Boeing 757 NDT, Part 6, 51–

00–01 or 757 NDT, Part 6, 51–00–19 if 

the scribe line is greater than 0.063 inch 

from the lower edge of the upper skin. 

NWA reports that Boeing has indicated 

that the HFEC inspection procedure 

local to scribe lines greater than 0.063 

inch from the lower edge of the upper 

skin would be structurally satisfactory if 

an ultrasonic inspection specified in the 

757 NDT Manual, Part 4, 53–00–01 or 

53–00–02 is accomplished from the butt 

joint forward of the affected scribe line 

to the butt joint aft of the affected scribe 

line. In addition, NWA understands that 

an AMOC to AD 2006–07–12 has been 

granted for Model 737 airplanes for a 

similar inspection technique. This 

process reduces the area required to be 

inspected using pencil probes and will 

reduce the time required for inspection. 

NWA requests that we revise the NPRM 

to include the alternative inspection 

instead of considering this option only 

through the AMOC process. 

We partially agree with this request. 

While Model 737 airplanes use the 

ultrasonic inspection from the butt joint 

forward to the butt joint aft of the 

affected scribe line, and a HFEC 

inspection local to scribe lines greater 

than 0.063 inch from the lower edge of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
60246 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the upper skin, this technique has not 

yet been confirmed to be acceptable for 

use on Model 757 airplanes. We are 

working with Boeing to determine if this 

inspection technique can be used on the 

Model 757 airplanes. If this technique is 

acceptable, a fleetwide AMOC might be 

issued to allow this technique. We have 

not changed the final rule regarding this 

issue. 

Request for Provisions for Converted 

Airplanes 

FedEx reports that it will convert 

about 90 passenger airplanes into 

special freighters. FedEx considers these 

airplanes, after conversion, to most 

closely resemble Group 6 airplanes, as 

that Group is defined in the service 

bulletin. FedEx requests that we revise 

the NPRM to do the following: Consider 

possible prorated compliance times; 

identify the appropriate Group for 

converted airplanes; omit the inspection 

area for decals forward of BS 661, where 

a new panel was installed during 

conversion; omit the inspection of the 

butt joint at BS 660; and define the 

areas, compliance times, and damage 

limits for the inspection of the upper 

skins for decals aft of BS 660. According 

to FedEx, providing these conditions in 

the AD instead of an AMOC would be 

more expeditious. 

We disagree with the request. FedEx 

provided no details of the conversion 

modification, so we cannot evaluate the 

merits of the claim that these airplanes 

are similar to Group 6 airplanes. 

However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (j) of the final rule, we may 

approve requests for airplane group 

reassignments, if details of the 

modification are provided that would 

substantiate that reassigning these 

airplanes to Group 6 would be 

appropriate and provide an acceptable 

level of safety. We have not changed the 

final rule regarding this issue. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD as proposed. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 945 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet; 

of these, about 634 are U.S.-registered 

airplanes. The following table provides 

the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this AD. There are no U.S.- 

registered airplanes in Group 5 or Group 

6. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Inspections Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Cost per 

airplane 

Number of 

U.S.-registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Group 1 .......................................................................... 127 $80 $10,160 144 $1,463,040 

Group 2 .......................................................................... 122 80 9,760 6 58,560 

Group 3 .......................................................................... 154 80 12,320 75 924,000 

Group 4 .......................................................................... 128 80 10,240 409 4,188,160 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2007–19–07 Boeing: Amendment 39–15198. 

Docket No. FAA–2007–27560; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–211–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 

28, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757–

200, –200PF, and –200CB series airplanes, 

certificated in any category; as identified in 

Boeing Service Bulletin 757–53A0092, 

Revision 1, dated January 10, 2007. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from reports of scribe 

lines adjacent to the fuselage skin lap joints. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and correct 

cracks, which could grow and cause rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 24, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 60247 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspections 

(f) Perform detailed inspections to detect 

scribe lines and cracks of the fuselage skin, 

lap joints, circumferential butt splice strap, 

and external and internal approved repairs; 

and perform related investigative and 

corrective actions. Do the actions in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757–

53A0092, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2007, 

except as required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD. Do the actions within the applicable 

compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E. 

of the service bulletin, except as required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD. 

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications 

(g) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 757–

53A0092, Revision 1, dated January 10, 2007, 

specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate 

repair instructions, repair using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(h) Boeing Service Bulletin 757–53A0092, 

Revision 1, dated January 10, 2007, specifies 

compliance times relative to the date of 

issuance of the service bulletin; however, this 

AD requires compliance before the specified 

compliance time relative to the effective date 

of the AD. 

Credit for Prior Accomplishment 

(i) Inspections done before the effective 

date of this AD in accordance with Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 757–53A0092, dated 

September 18, 2006, are acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on 

any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(k) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

757–53A0092, Revision 1, dated January 10, 

2007, to perform the actions that are required 

by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of this document in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. 

Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207, 

for a copy of this service information. You 

may review copies at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

15, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–20816 Filed 10–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket FAA No. FAA–2007–27911; 

Airspace Docket No. 07–ANM–8] 

Establishment of Class E Airspace; 

Hailey, ID 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50046), 

Airspace Docket No. 07–ANM–8, FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2007–27911. In that 

rule, an error was made in the legal 

description for Hailey, ID. Specifically, 

the longitude referencing Friedman 

Memorial Airport, ID stated ‘‘* * *long. 

114°17′45′′ W.’’ instead of 

‘‘* * *long.114°17′44′′ W.’’ This action 

corrects that error. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, 

December 20, 2007. The Director of the 

Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference action under 

1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual 

revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 

publication of conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation 

Administration, System Support Group, 

Western Service Area, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 917–6726. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On August 30, 2007, a final rule for 

Airspace Docket No. 07–ANM–8, FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2007–27911 was 

published in the Federal Register (72 

FR 50046), establishing Class E airspace 

in Hailey, ID. The longitude referencing 

Friedman Memorial Airport, ID was 

incorrect in that the longitude stated 

‘‘* * *114°17′45′′ W.’’ instead of 

‘‘* * *long.114°17′44′′ W.’’ This action 

corrects that error. 

Correction to Final Rule 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me, the legal description as 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50046), 

Airspace Docket No. 07–ANM–8, FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2007–27911, and 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1, is corrected as follows: 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ On page 50047, correct the legal 

description for Hailey, ID, to read as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ANM ID, E5 Hailey, ID [Corrected] 

Friedman Memorial Airport, ID 

(lat. 43°30′14′′ N., long. 114°17′44′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 5.5-mile 

radius of Friedman Memorial Airport, and 

within 2 miles west and 5.5 miles east of the 

328° bearing from the airport extending from 

the 5.5-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of 

the airport, and within 2 miles west and 4 

miles east of the 159° bearing from the airport 

extending from the 5.5-mile radius to 15.5 

miles southeast of the airport; that airspace 

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the 

surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 

44°00′00′′ N., long. 114°55′00′′ W., thence to 

lat. 44°00′00′′ N., long. 113°53′00′′ W., thence 

to lat. 43°00′00′′ N., long. 113°49′00′′ W., 

thence to lat. 43°00′00′′ N., long. 114°55′00′′ 

W., thence to point of beginning. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 

5, 2007. 

Clark Desing, 

Manager, System Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. E7–20796 Filed 10–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES