Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 7409 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(f) The Manager, Atlanta 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: Darby 

Mirocha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta 

ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, 

Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474–5573; 

fax: (404) 474–5606. 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 Kansas City, Missouri, on 

February 9, 2010. 

Steven W. Thompson, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3288 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0124; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–CE–002–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; PIAGGIO 

AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model 

PIAGGIO P–180 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 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 failure of fuel pump 

sealing, due to possible incorrect 

maintenance procedures and 

subsequent testing, caused a fuel 

leakage into the main landing gear bay. 

Presence of fuel vapours in that zone 

creates a risk of fire due to presence of 

potential ignition sources such as 

electrical equipment and connectors. 

The proposed AD actions that are 

intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket 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: 

Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– 

4145; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

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–2010–0124; Directorate Identifier 

2010–CE–002–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 European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 

2009–0228, dated October 26, 2009 

(referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to 

correct an unsafe condition for the 

specified products. The MCAI states: 

A failure of fuel pump sealing, due to 

possible incorrect maintenance procedures 

and subsequent testing, caused a fuel leakage 

into the main landing gear bay. Presence of 

fuel vapours in that zone creates a risk of fire 

due to presence of potential ignition sources 

such as electrical equipment and connectors. 

As a consequence, this new Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) requires a functional check of 

main and stand-by fuel pumps for absence of 

leakage and an update of the Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM). 

You may obtain further information 

by examining the MCAI in the AD 

docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. 

has issued Service Bulletin (Mandatory) 

N.: 80–0278, dated July 15, 2009. The 

actions described in this service 

information are intended to correct the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the 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 this State of 

Design Authority, they have notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This Proposed 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 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

will affect 63 products of U.S. registry. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
7410 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 $85 per work-hour. Required 

parts would cost about $10 per product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $11,340, or $180 per 

product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 40 work-hours and require parts 

costing $7,349 for a cost of $10,749 per 

product. We have no way of 

determining the number of products 

that may need these actions. 

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, Incorporation by reference, 

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: 

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.: Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0124; Directorate Identifier 

2010–CE–002–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by April 5, 

2010. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model PIAGGIO P– 

180 airplanes, all serial numbers up to and 

including serial number 1192, certificated in 

any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 28: Fuel. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

‘‘A failure of fuel pump sealing, due to 

possible incorrect maintenance procedures 

and subsequent testing, caused a fuel leakage 

into the main landing gear bay. Presence of 

fuel vapours in that zone creates a risk of fire 

due to presence of potential ignition sources 

such as electrical equipment and connectors. 

As a consequence, this new Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) requires a functional check of 

main and stand-by fuel pumps for absence of 

leakage and an update of the Aircraft 

Maintenance Manual (AMM).’’ 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) For all airplanes equipped with any 

main or standby fuel pump P/N 1C12–43 that 

has been replaced for any reason on or before 

doing the action in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

AD, within 150 hours time-in-service after 

the effective date of this AD do a functional 

inspection of the main and standby fuel 

pumps for leakage following steps 1 through 

14 of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service 

Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80–0278, dated July 

15, 2009. 

(2) If any leakage is found during the 

inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight, replace the fuel 

pump with a serviceable unit following the 

Accomplishment Instructions in PIAGGIO 

AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Service Bulletin 

(Mandatory) N.: 80–0278, dated July 15, 

2009. For the purpose of this AD, a 

serviceable fuel pump is a pump where no 

leakage is found during the functional 

inspection as instructed in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of PIAGGIO 

AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Service Bulletin 

(Mandatory) N.: 80–0278, dated July 15, 

2009. 

(3) For all airplanes, within 30 days after 

the effective date of this AD, incorporate 

PIAGGIO P.180 AVANTI MAINTENANCE 

MANUAL Temporary Revision (TR) No. 33 

and 34, dated July 7, 2009, or PIAGGIO P.180 

AVANTI II MAINTENANCE MANUAL TR 

No. 31 and 41, dated July 7, 2009, in the 

approved operator’s airplane maintenance 

program, e.g. aircraft maintenance manual 

(AMM). 

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, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4145; fax: (816) 

329–4090. 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 FAAapproved 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 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 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 AD No.: 2009– 

0228, dated October 26, 2009; and PIAGGIO 

AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletin 

(Mandatory) N.: 80–0278, dated July 15, 

2009, for related information. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 7411 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

February 8, 2010. 

Steven W. Thompson, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3290 Filed 2–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 410 

Schedule of Water Charges 

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Delaware River Basin 

Commission will hold a public hearing 

to receive comments on proposed 

amendments to the Administrative 

Manual—Part III—Basin Regulations— 

Water Supply Charges to revise the 

schedule of water charges. 

DATES: The Commission will hold a 

public hearing on Tuesday, April 13, 

2010, beginning at 1:30 p.m. The 

hearing will continue until the later of 

3:30 p.m. or such time as all those who 

wish to testify have been afforded an 

opportunity to do so. Written comments 

will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Friday, 

April 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing will take place 

in the Goddard Room at the 

Commission’s office building, located at 

25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, 

New Jersey. Driving directions are 

available on the Commission’s Web 

site—http://www.drbc.net. Please do not 

rely on Internet mapping services as 

they may not provide accurate 

directions to the DRBC. 

Written comments may be submitted 

at the hearing and may also be sent as 

follows: via e-mail to 

Paula.Schmitt@drbc.state.nj.us; 

otherwise, to the attention of the 

Commission Secretary, DRBC, either by 

fax to (609) 883–9522; U.S. Mail to P.O. 

Box 7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628– 

0360; or delivery service to 25 State 

Police Drive, West Trenton, NJ 08628– 

0360. Regardless of the method of 

submission, written comments should 

include the name, affiliation (if any) and 

address of the commenter and the 

subject line ‘‘Schedule of Water 

Charges.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 

Please contact Paula Schmitt at 609– 

477–7224 or Katharine O’Hara at 609– 

477–7205 with questions about the 

public hearing. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. In response to the need to 

fund certain water supply storage 

facility projects, the Commission 

between 1964 and 1974 established a 

system of water supply charges 

pursuant to section 3.7 of the Delaware 

River Basin Compact. In December of 

1964, it adopted Resolution 64–16A, ‘‘A 

Resolution to establish policy 

concerning water supply in federal 

projects authorized in the 

Comprehensive Plan.’’ This resolution 

established a revenue stream to repay 

the obligations the Commission 

eventually assumed to purchase 

capacity at the federal government’s 

Beltzville and Blue Marsh water storage 

facilities. The resolution specifically 

provided that the debt for DRBC’s share 

of storage in these facilities would be 

repaid through the sale of water (or 

other products and services) and 

through an apportionment of the costs 

to the states benefiting from those 

projects. See Resolution No. 64–16A, 

adopted December 29, 1964 (adding to 

the Comprehensive Plan a ‘‘Section IX— 

Water Supply Policy’’, par. 3.a. and b. of 

which establish the described debt 

repayment mechanisms). 

The Commission subsequently 

adopted Resolution No. 71–4, ‘‘A 

Resolution to amend and supplement 

the Comprehensive Plan by the addition 

of a new article on policy for water 

supply charges.’’ This resolution 

established a schedule of rates for basin 

water withdrawals and provided that 

the ‘‘charges for water supplied will 

include all costs associated with making 

basin water supply available and 

maintaining its continued availability in 

adequate quantity and quality over 

time.’’ Res. No. 71–4, adopted April 7, 

1971, par. A.2. Resolution No. 71–4 

requires the Commission to collect 

sufficient annual revenue to meet all 

annual project costs, ‘‘including debt 

service, operation, maintenance, 

replacement, reserves, and associated 

administrative costs.’’ Res. No. 71–4, 

par. A.2.b. The Commission recognized 

that the waters of the basin formed a 

‘‘unitary system’’ and thus applied the 

charges to water withdrawals made 

throughout the basin, including upstream of Commission facilities. See 

Res. No. 71–4, preamble. The unitary 

system is sometimes referred to as the 

‘‘pooled water’’ theory. See, for example, 

Delaware River Basin Commission v. 

Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority, 

641 F. 2d 1087, 1094 (3rd Cir. 1982) 

(citing Borough of Morrisville v. 

Delaware River Basin Comm’n, 399 

F.Supp. 469, 471 (E.D. Pa. 1975), aff’d 

per curiam, 532 F.2d 745 (3d Cir. 1976)). 

Resolution No. 71–4 imposed charges 

only on withdrawals from surface 

waters of the basin. In accordance with 

Section 15.1(b) of the Compact, it 

limited charges to the amounts of water 

withdrawn in excess of those ‘‘that 

could lawfully have been made without 

charge on the effective date of the 

Compact.’’ Compact § 15.1(b). 

The Commission has historically 

placed the revenues generated through 

the sale of water in an account called 

the ‘‘Water Supply Storage Facilities 

Fund’’ (‘‘Storage Fund’’). The Storage 

Fund holds funds dedicated to pay the 

costs of project construction, operation, 

maintenance, and replacement, as well 

as associated administrative costs. See 

Res. No. 71–4, par. A.2. The estimated 

balance in the Storage Fund as of June 

30, 2009 was $12.1M. A snapshot of the 

Storage Fund at the close of fiscal year 

ending July 31, 2009 shows the 

following: The Storage Fund received 

approximately $2.6M in water sale 

revenue. It disbursed or incurred 

approximately $2.2M in expenses, 

consisting of approximately $483K in 

interest paid to the U.S. Treasury, 

$423K in asset depreciation, $310K for 

operations and maintenance of the Blue 

Marsh and Beltzville projects, $86K for 

contractual services from the U.S. 

Geological Survey for operation and 

maintenance of stream gauges, and 

$933K associated with Commission 

administration. The fund lost $153K on 

investments (the sole Storage Fund 

investment loss in 35 years). The 

approximately $204K difference 

between the annual costs and revenue is 

retained in the Storage Fund as a reserve 

against the future costs of expected 

significant repair to the facilities. 

Historically, the Commission has not 

charged its full administrative cost 

against the Storage Fund. Periodic 

reviews of the charges have shown that 

the costs involved in Commission 

activities properly chargeable to the 

Storage Fund have exceeded the 

amounts actually charged for many 

years. To the extent that the Storage 

Fund has not been charged its full 

allocable costs, contributions by the 

signatory parties of the Delaware River 

Basin Compact (the states of Delaware, 

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania 

and the federal government) have made 

up the difference. In extremely 

challenging economic times, however, 

the signatories find themselves less 

capable of assuming this burden. In 

fiscal year 2010, an adjustment was 

made to better align charges to the 

Storage Fund with actual costs. Even 

absent this adjustment, the trend 

evident since 2008 is that retained 

Storage Fund earnings have leveled off. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS