52156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 984 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 984.445 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 984.445 Procedures for voting by mail, email, telephone, videoconference, facsimile, 

or any other means of communication. 

(a) Whenever the Board votes upon 

any proposition by mail, e-mail, or 

facsimile, at least six members or 

alternates acting as members must vote 

and one dissenting vote shall prevent its 

adoption. Each proposition to be voted 

upon by mail, e-mail, or facsimile shall 

specify a time limit for members to vote, 

after which the alternates shall be given 

the opportunity to vote. 

(b) Whenever the Board conducts 

meetings by telephone, 

videoconference, or any technology that 

enables member interaction, the vote 

shall be conducted by roll call. 

Dated: October 1, 2009. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–24299 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0938; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–052–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS 

Aircraft Ltd. Model PC–7 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: 

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is 

prompted due to the discovery of cracks 

caused by stress corrosion in the main-gear 

support struts. All the main-gear support 

struts that had cracks were made from 

material AA2024–T351 which has a lower 

resistance to stress corrosion cracking. 

Such cracks, if undetected, could lead to 

the failure of the strut during landing which 

could then cause the Main Landing Gear 

(MLG) to collapse. 

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 November 23, 

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. 

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: 

Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– 

4059; fax: (816) 329–4090; e-mail: 

doug.rudolph@faa.gov. 

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–2009–0938; Directorate Identifier 

2009–CE–052–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 Federal Office of Civil Aviation 

(FOCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Switzerland, has issued FOCA AD 

HB–2009–011, dated September 10, 

2009 (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 due to the discovery of cracks 

caused by stress corrosion in the main-gear 

support struts. All the main-gear support 

struts that had cracks were made from 

material AA2024–T351 which has a lower 

resistance to stress corrosion cracking. 

Such cracks, if undetected, could lead to 

the failure of the strut during landing which 

could then cause the Main Landing Gear 

(MLG) to collapse. 

In order to correct and control the 

situation, this AD mandates the identification 

of the main-gear support struts to check if 

they have rounded clevis lugs and a NonDestructive Inspection (NDI) procedure on 

the main-gear support struts if they have 

chamfered clevis lugs. 

For main-gear support struts with 

chamfered clevis lugs that show cracks 

during the NDI, the MCAI also requires 

replacing any cracked main-gear 

support struts with parts of improved 

design. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. has issued 

PILATUS PC–7 Service Bulletin No. 32– 

024, Rev. No. 1, dated November 17, 

2008; and PILATUS PC–7 Service 

Bulletin No. 32–025, Rev. No. 1, dated 

November 17, 2008. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52157 

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 10 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. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $3,200, or $320 per 

product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 20 work-hours and require parts 

costing $20,000, for a cost of $21,600 

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: 

PILATUS Aircraft Ltd: Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0938; Directorate Identifier 2009– 

CE–052–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 23, 2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model PC–7 

airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 101 

through 618 that are: 

(1) Equipped with main-gear support struts 

part number (P/N) 532.10.09.039 or P/N 

114.48.07.172; and 

(2) Certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is 

prompted due to the discovery of cracks 

caused by stress corrosion in the main-gear 

support struts. All the main-gear support 

struts that had cracks were made from 

material AA2024–T351 which has a lower 

resistance to stress corrosion cracking. 

Such cracks, if undetected, could lead to 

the failure of the strut during landing which 

could then cause the Main Landing Gear 

(MLG) to collapse. 

In order to correct and control the 

situation, this AD mandates the identification 

of the main-gear support struts to check if 

they have rounded clevis lugs and a NonDestructive Inspection (NDI) procedure on 

the main-gear support struts if they have 

chamfered clevis lugs. 

For main-gear support struts with chamfered 

clevis lugs that show cracks during the NDI, 

the MCAI also requires replacing any cracked 

main-gear support struts with parts of 

improved design. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in the 

AD docket. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) Within the next 30 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this 

AD or within the next 30 days after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

first, visually inspect the left and right maingear support struts to determine if they have 

rounded or chamfered clevis lugs. Do the 

inspection following paragraph 3.A. of 

PILATUS PC–7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, 

Rev. No. 1, dated November 17, 2008. 

(2) Based on the results of the inspection 

required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, if the 

main-gear support strut has rounded clevis 

lugs, no further action is required except the 

requirement specified in paragraph (f)(4) of 

this AD still applies. Make an entry in the 

airplane logbook to show compliance with 

this AD. 

(3) Based on the results of the inspection 

required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, if the 

main-gear support strut has chamfered clevis 

lugs, before further flight do a NonDestructive Inspection (NDI). Do the NDI 

following paragraphs 3.B. through 3.E. of 

PILATUS PC–7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, 

Rev. No. 1, dated November 17, 2008. 

(i) If cracks are found during the inspection 

required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD: 

(A) Before further flight after the 

inspection, replace any cracked main-gear 

support struts with new main-gear support 

struts, P/N 532.10.09.128. Do the 

replacement following PILATUS PC–7 

Service Bulletin No. 32–025, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 17, 2008. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(B) Within the next 10 days after the 

inspection, report the cracks to PILATUS 

AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison Manager, 

CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland, using the 

Crack Report Form (Figure 4) in PILATUS 

PC–7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, Rev. No. 

1, dated November 17, 2008. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in this regulation under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

and assigned OMB Control Number 2120– 

0056. 

(ii) If no cracks are found during the 

inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

AD, no further action is required. Make an 

entry in the airplane logbook to show 

compliance with this AD. 

(4) As of 30 days after the effective date of 

this AD, do not install any main-gear support 

struts, P/N 532.10.09.039 or P/N 

114.48.07.172, with chamfered clevis lugs. 

Note 1: If you have any main-gear support 

struts, P/N 532.10.09.039 or P/N 

114.48.07.172, with chamfered clevis lugs 

held as spares, you may return them to 

PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison 

Manager, CH–6371 STANS, Switzerland, for 

replacement with a new main-gear support 

strut, P/N 532.10.09.128. 

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, 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; e-mail: doug.rudolph@faa.gov. 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 

(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 FOCA AD HB–2009–011, 

dated September 10, 2009; and PILATUS PC– 

7 Service Bulletin No. 32–024, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 17, 2008; and PILATUS PC– 

7 Service Bulletin No. 32–025, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 17, 2008, for related 

information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 5, 2009. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–24450 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0754] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, 

Norfolk, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily change the regulations that 

govern the operation of the Berkley 

Bridge, mile 0.4, across the Eastern 

Branch of the Elizabeth River, Norfolk, 

VA. Due to the temporary closure of two 

area bridges, the Berkley Bridge has 

experienced an increase in traffic 

volume. The proposed change would 

provide set opening periods for the 

bridge during the day, relieving 

vehicular traffic congestion during the 

weekday daytime hours while still 

providing for the reasonable needs of 

navigation. 

DATES: Comments, related material, and 

requests for public meeting must be 

received by the Coast Guard on or before 

December 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0754 using any one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Waverly Gregory, 

Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard 

District, telephone 757–398–6222, 

e-mail Waverly.W.Gregory@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0754), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (http:// 

www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand delivery, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a phone number in the body 

of your document so that we can contact 

you if we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2009–0754’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1