Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43645 

the purchase and installation of the 

treatment equipment? 

e. What are the typical ongoing 

operating costs associated with heat 

treatment or methyl bromide fumigation 

of wood inputs or constructed WPM 

(including labor, energy, and other 

variable expenses)? 

f. Information provided by the 

American Lumber Standards Committee 

indicates that there is significant unused 

heat treatment capacity across the 

United States. Is this capacity 

appropriate for both supplying treated 

inputs and treating finished products? 

And is this capacity suitably distributed 

regionally to adequately serve the WPM 

industry if treatment were required for 

all WPM moved interstate? 

7. What would be the environmental 

effects of requiring treatment of WPM 

moved interstate, including effects on 

global climate change and the 

stratospheric ozone layer? What would 

be the environmental effects of 

alternative packaging materials? 

a. If the WPM industry is given the 

option of heat treatment or methyl 

bromide fumigation, what, if any, 

change would occur in carbon dioxide 

emissions relative to current global 

emissions, and what, if any, changes 

would occur in atmospheric bromine 

concentrations relative to current global 

concentrations? 

b. What effect would changes in rates 

of use of the most likely alternative 

packaging materials have on emissions? 

8. How could APHIS best monitor 

compliance with treatment 

requirements? How can WPM be 

identified as eligible for interstate 

movement if treatment were to be 

required? Should we recognize ISPM 15 

markings as one means of identifying 

WPM as eligible for interstate 

movement? 

9. Various parties are frequently 

involved in the construction and 

interstate movement of WPM. Who 

should be responsible for ensuring that 

WPM moving interstate meets any 

requirements that might be imposed? 

10. Is it feasible and cost-effective for 

the shipping industry to replace WPM 

with processed wood packaging 

material or other alternative packaging 

material? 

a. What are the most likely 

substitutes? 

b. What portion of the packaging 

material market do alternative materials 

currently comprise? 

11. One advantage of wood dunnage 

is its biodegradable nature. What would 

be the environmental effects, if any, of 

requiring that less biodegradable 

materials be substituted for wood 

dunnage? 

12. Concern has been expressed over 

the relative fire hazards associated with 

certain packaging materials, specifically 

plastic. Is there any specific information 

about the fire hazard of WPM relative to 

other packaging materials that should be 

considered in our assessment of 

environmental and other risks? 

13. If treatment of some kind were to 

be required for all WPM moved 

interstate, would the industry need a 

phase-in period to allow time to adapt? 

If so, how long should this phase-in 

period last? 

In addition to the questions listed 

above, we are asking that the public 

identify any other issues that they 

consider to be appropriate in connection 

with amending the regulations 

governing the interstate movement of 

WPM. 

This action has been determined to be 

not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

August 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–20708 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0719; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–078–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet 

Model 45 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 

Learjet Model 45 airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require inspecting 

the baggage bay door fire barrier seal for 

inconel mesh in the fire barrier seal 

material; for certain airplanes, 

inspecting the fiberglass doublers for 

presence of red Room Temperature 

Vulcanizing (RTV) sealant; and doing 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. This proposed AD 

results from reports of incorrect external 

baggage door seal material and door seal 

sealant as well as incorrect sealant on 

interior baggage panels used during 

manufacture of the airplane. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent the use of 

door seals and sealant that do not meet 

flammability requirements, which could 

result in an uncontrollable and 

undetected fire within the baggage 

compartment. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 13, 2009. 

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 proposed AD, contact Learjet, Inc., 

One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 

67209–2942; telephone 316–946–2000; 

fax 316–946–2220; e-mail 

ac.ict@aero.bombardier.com; Internet 

http://www.bombardier.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221 

or 425–227–1152. 

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: 

William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 

67209; telephone (316) 946–4116; fax 

(316) 946–4107. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
43646 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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–2009–0719; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–078–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 propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Learjet Model 45 airplanes. This 

proposed AD results from reports of 

incorrect external baggage door seal 

material and door seal sealant as well as 

incorrect sealant on interior baggage 

panels used during manufacture of the 

airplane. If a fire or heat source 

deteriorates the non-conforming door 

seal, the flow characteristics of this 

compartment will no longer be 

maintained, and the fire threat could 

potentially spread to the interior 

baggage panels. This condition, if not 

corrected, could result in uncontrollable 

and undetected fire within the baggage 

compartment. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed the service 

bulletins listed in the following table. 

SERVICE BULLETINS

Service bulletin Revision Dated 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 40–52–07 ....................................................................................................... 1 July 21, 2008. 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 45–52–16 ....................................................................................................... 1 July 21, 2008. 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 40–25–11 ....................................................................................................... 1 January 19, 2009. 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 45–25–21 ....................................................................................................... 1 January 19, 2009. 

Bombardier Service Bulletins 40–52– 

07 and 45–52–16, both Revision 1, both 

dated July 21, 2008, describe procedures 

for inspecting for the presence of 

inconel mesh in the baggage bay door 

fire barrier seal material, and doing 

related investigative and corrective 

actions as applicable. The corrective 

actions include replacing the fire barrier 

seal if inconel mesh is not present in the 

baggage bay door fire barrier seal. The 

related investigative action is inspecting 

for the presence of dark gray firewall 

sealant used to attach the fire barrier 

seal to the baggage bay door if inconel 

mesh is present in the fire barrier seal, 

and for airplanes on which there is no 

dark grey firewall sealant, the corrective 

action is replacing the fire barrier seal. 

Bombardier Service Bulletins 40–25– 

11 and 45–25–21, both Revision 1, both 

dated January 19, 2009, describe 

procedures for inspecting the outer 

surfaces of the fiberglass doublers for 

presence of red Room Temperature 

Vulcanizing (RTV) sealant. For airplanes 

on which there is any red RTV sealant 

found, these service bulletins describe 

procedures for replacing the sealant 

with a primerless sealant. 

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. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 256 airplanes of U.S. 

registry. The following table provides 

the estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this proposed AD. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Cost per 

product 

Number of U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection and modification of red RTV sealant ....................... 10 $80 $800 Up to 256 .......... Up to $204,800. 

Inspection and modification of fire barrier seal ......................... 6 80 480 Up to 256 .......... Up to $122,880. 

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: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43647 

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, 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: 

Learjet: Docket No. FAA–2009–0719; 

Directorate Identifier 2009–NM–078–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by October 

13, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Learjet Model 45 

airplanes, certificated in any category, serial 

numbers 45–005 through 45–321 inclusive, 

45–323 through 45–332 inclusive, and 45– 

2001 through 45–2075 inclusive. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 52: Doors, and ATA Code 25: 

Equipment/Furnishings. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD results from reports of 

incorrect external baggage door seal material 

and door seal sealant, as well as incorrect 

sealant on interior baggage panels used 

during manufacture of the airplane. The 

Federal Aviation Administration is issuing 

this AD to prevent the use of door seals and 

sealant that do not meet flammability 

requirements, which could result in an 

uncontrollable and undetected fire within the 

baggage compartment. 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Inspection of Red Room Temperature 

Vulcanizing (RTV) Sealant in Aft Baggage 

Bay 

(g) For airplanes having serial numbers 45– 

005 through 45–314 inclusive and 45–2001 

through 45–2065 inclusive: Within 300 flight 

hours after the effective date of this AD, do 

a general visual inspection of the outer 

surfaces of the fiberglass doublers for the 

presence of red RTV sealant, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions in 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 45–25–21, 

Revision 1, dated January 19, 2009; or 40–25– 

11, Revision 1, dated January 19, 2009; as 

applicable. If any red RTV sealant is found, 

before further flight, replace the sealant in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions in Bombardier Service Bulletin 

45–25–21, Revision 1, dated January 19, 

2009; or 40–25–11, Revision 1, dated January 

19, 2009; as applicable. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual 

examination of an interior or exterior area, 

installation, or assembly to detect obvious 

damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of 

inspection is made from within touching 

distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror 

may be necessary to ensure visual access to 

all surfaces in the inspection area. This level 

of inspection is made under normally 

available lighting conditions such as 

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or 

droplight and may require removal or 

opening of access panels or doors. Stands, 

ladders, or platforms may be required to gain 

proximity to the area being checked.’’ 

Inspection of Baggage Bay Door Fire Barrier 

Seal 

(h) For all airplanes: Within 300 flight 

hours after the effective date of this AD, do 

a general visual inspection of the baggage bay 

door fire barrier seal for the presence of metal 

inconel mesh in the material, and do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 45–52–16, Revision 1, dated 

July 21, 2008; or 40–52–07, Revision 1, dated 

July 21, 2008; as applicable. Do all applicable 

related investigative and corrective actions 

before further flight in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions in Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 45–52–16, Revision 1, dated 

July 21, 2008; or 40–52–07, Revision 1, dated 

July 21, 2008; as applicable. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) 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: 

William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA, Wichita 

ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; 

telephone (316) 946–4116; fax (316) 946– 

4107. 

(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 principal maintenance inspector 

(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), 

as appropriate, or lacking a principal 

inspector, your local Flight Standards District 

Office. The AMOC approval letter must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

18, 2009. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–20637 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0200; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AAL–5] 

Proposed Establishment of Class E 

Airspace; Elim, AK 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

establish Class E airspace at the Elim 

Airport at Elim, AK. Two Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures 

(SIAPs) are being developed for the Elim 

Airport at Elim, AK. Additionally, one 

textual Obstacle Departure Procedure 

(ODP) and a Standard Instrument 

Departure Procedure (SID) are being 

developed. Adoption of this proposal 

would result in establishing Class E 

airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) and 

1,200 ft. above the surface at the Elim 

Airport at Elim, AK. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the 

proposal to the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. You must identify the 

docket number FAA–2009–0200/ 

Airspace Docket No. 09–AAL–5, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

review the public docket containing the 

proposal, any comments received, and 

any final disposition in person in the 

Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket Office 

(telephone 1–800–647–5527) is on the 

plaza level of the Department of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS