Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18923 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities. 

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 50 producers 

of grapes in the production area and 

approximately 20 handlers subject to 

regulation under the marketing order. 

The Small Business Administration (13 

CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural 

producers as those having annual 

receipts less than $750,000 and defines 

small agricultural service firms as those 

whose annual receipts are less than 

$6,500,000. 

Last year, six of the 20 handlers 

subject to regulation had annual grape 

sales of at least $6,500,000. In addition, 

10 of the 50 producers had annual sales 

of at least $750,000. Therefore, a 

majority of handlers and producers may 

be classified as small entities. 

This rule would revise § 925.160 of 

the order’s rules and regulations to 

include the requirement that handlers 

file an annual grape acreage survey. 

This rule would impose minimal 

additional costs on handlers regulated 

under the order. The benefits of this 

proposed rule are not expected to be 

disproportionately greater or less for 

small handlers than for large entities. 

At the meeting, the committee 

discussed an alternative to this change, 

which would be to ask handlers to 

voluntarily report grape acreage. 

However, under voluntary reporting, it 

is possible that all handlers would not 

report the information, making it 

difficult for the committee to aggregate 

accurate information used in 

determining the committee’s crop 

estimate, assessment rate, and budget of 

expenses. The committee agreed that 

this alternative would not be in the best 

interest of the committee and the 

industry, and unanimously 

recommended mandating the report. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the information collection 

requirements that are contained in this 

rule are currently approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), under OMB No. 0581–0189, 

Generic OMB Fruit Crops. This rule 

would impose minimal additional 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements, deemed to be 

insignificant, on both small and large 

grape handlers. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this rule. As with other 

similar marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

The AMS is committed to complying 

with the E-Government Act, to promote 

the use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

Further, the committee’s meeting on 

February 6, 2007, was widely publicized 

throughout the desert grape industry 

and all interested persons were 

encouraged to attend the meeting and 

participate in committee deliberations. 

Like all committee meetings, the 

February 6, 2007, meeting was a public 

meeting; and all entities, both large and 

small, were encouraged to express their 

views on this issue. All interested 

persons were invited to attend this 

meeting and encouraged to participate 

in the industry’s deliberations. 

Finally, interested persons are invited 

to submit information on the regulatory 

and informational impacts of this action 

on small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed 

appropriate because this rule would 

need to be in place as soon as possible 

since the shipping season begins April 

20. All written comments timely 

received will be considered before a 

final determination is made on this 

matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A 

DESIGNATED AREA OF 

SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 925 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. In § 925.160, the current paragraph 

is redesignated as paragraph (a), and a 

new paragraph (b) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 925.160 Reports. 

(a) * * * 

(b) When requested by the California 

Desert Grape Administrative Committee 

(CDGAC), each shipper who ships 

grapes shall furnish to the committee at 

such time as the committee shall 

require, an annual grape acreage survey 

(CDGAC Form 7), which shall include, 

but is not limited to, the following: the 

applicable year in which the report is 

requested; the names of the shipper 

(handler) who will handle the grapes 

and the grower who produces them; the 

location of each vineyard; the variety or 

varieties grown in each vineyard; and 

the bearing, non-bearing, and total acres 

of each vineyard. 

Dated: April 11, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–7179 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM365 Special Conditions No. 

25–07–02–SC] 

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787–

8 Airplane; Systems and Data 

Networks Security—Protection of 

Airplane Systems and Data Networks 

From Unauthorized External Access 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This notice proposes special 

conditions for the Boeing Model 787–8 

airplane. This airplane will have novel 

or unusual design features when 

compared to the state of technology 

envisioned in the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 

airplanes. The architecture of the Boeing 

Model 787–8 systems and networks 

allows access to external systems and 

networks, including the public Internet. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
18924 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

On-board wired and wireless devices 

may also have access to parts of the 

airplane’s digital systems that provide 

flight critical functions. These new 

connectivity capabilities may result in 

security vulnerabilities to the airplane’s 

critical systems. For these design 

features, the applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for 

protection and security of airplane 

systems and data networks against 

unauthorized access. These proposed 

special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. Additional 

special conditions will be issued for 

other novel or unusual design features 

of the Boeing Model 787–8 airplanes. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 31, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal 

may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal 

Aviation Administration, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules 

Docket (ANM–113), Docket No. NM365, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; or delivered in 

duplicate to the Transport Airplane 

Directorate at the above address. All 

comments must be marked Docket No. 

NM365. Comments may be inspected in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will 

Struck, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew 

Interface, ANM–111, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2764; facsimile 

(425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

special conditions, explain the reason 

for any recommended change, and 

include supporting data. We ask that 

you send us two copies of written 

comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

these proposed special conditions. The 

docket is available for public inspection 

before and after the comment closing 

date. If you wish to review the docket 

in person, go to the address in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice 

between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change the proposed special 

conditions based on comments we 

receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it back to you. 

Background 

On March 28, 2003, Boeing applied 

for an FAA type certificate for its new 

Boeing Model 787–8 passenger airplane. 

The Boeing Model 787–8 airplane will 

be an all-new, two-engine jet transport 

airplane with a two-aisle cabin. The 

maximum takeoff weight will be 

476,000 pounds, with a maximum 

passenger count of 381 passengers. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, 

Boeing must show that Boeing Model 

787–8 airplanes (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘the 787’’) meet the applicable 

provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as 

amended by Amendments 25–1 through 

25–117, except 25.809(a) and 25.812, 

which will remain at Amendment 25–

115. If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for the 787 because of 

a novel or unusual design feature, 

special conditions are prescribed under 

provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the 787 must comply with 

the fuel vent and exhaust emission 

requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the 

noise certification requirements of part 

36. In addition, the FAA must issue a 

finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant 

to section 611 of Public Law 92–574, the 

‘‘Noise Control Act of 1972.’’

Special conditions, as defined in 

§ 11.19, are issued in accordance with 

§ 11.38 and become part of the type 

certification basis in accordance with 

§ 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same or similar novel 

or unusual design feature, the special 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model under the provisions of § 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The digital systems architecture for 

the 787 consists of several connected 

networks. This proposed network 

architecture is used for a diverse set of 

functions, including the following. 

1. Flight-safety-related control and 

navigation systems (Aircraft Control 

Domain). 

2. Airline business and administrative 

support (Airline Information Services 

Domain). 

3. Passenger entertainment, 

information, and Internet services 

(Passenger Information and 

Entertainment Services Domain). 

The proposed architecture of the 787 

is different from that of existing 

production (and retrofitted) airplanes. It 

allows connection to and access from 

external sources (the public Internet) 

and airline operator networks to the 

previously isolated Aircraft Control 

Domain and Airline Information 

Services Domain. The Aircraft Control 

Domain and the Airline Information 

Services Domain perform functions 

required for the safe operation of the 

airplane. 

Capability is proposed for providing 

electronic transmission of field-loadable 

software applications and databases to 

the aircraft. These would subsequently 

be loaded into systems within the 

Aircraft Control Domain and Airline 

Information Services Domain. Also, it 

may be proposed that on-board wired 

and wireless devices have access to the 

Aircraft Control Domain and Airline 

Information Services Domain. These 

new connectivity capabilities and 

features of the proposed design may 

result in security vulnerabilities from 

intentional or unintentional corruption 

of data and systems critical to the safety 

and maintenance of the airplane. The 

existing regulations and guidance 

material did not anticipate this type of 

system architecture or Internet and 

wireless electronic access to aircraft 

systems that provide flight critical 

functions. Furthermore, 14 CFR 

regulations and current system safety 

assessment policy and techniques do 

not address potential security 

vulnerabilities that could be caused by 

unauthorized external access to aircraft 

data buses and servers. Therefore, a 

special condition is proposed to ensure 

the security, integrity and availability of 

the critical systems within the Aircraft 

Control Domain and Airline Information 

Services Domain by establishing 

requirements for: 

1. Protection of Aircraft Control 

Domain and Airline Information 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 18925 

Services Domain systems, hardware, 

software, and databases from 

unauthorized access. 

2. Protection of field-loadable 

software (FLS) applications and 

databases which are electronically 

transmitted from external sources to the 

on-aircraft networks and storage 

devices, and used within the Aircraft 

Control Domain and Airline Information 

Services Domain. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these proposed 

special conditions are applicable to the 

787. Should Boeing apply at a later date 

for a change to the type certificate to 

include another model incorporating the 

same novel or unusual design features, 

these proposed special conditions 

would apply to that model as well 

under the provisions of § 21.101. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features of the 787. It 

is not a rule of general applicability, and 

it affects only the applicant that applied 

to the FAA for approval of these features 

on the airplane. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The authority citation for these 

Special Conditions is as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

proposes the following special 

conditions as part of the type 

certification basis for the Boeing Model 

787–8 airplane. 

The applicant shall ensure system security 

protection for the Aircraft Control Domain 

and Airline Information Services Domain 

from unauthorized external access. The 

applicant shall also ensure that security 

threats are identified and risk mitigation 

strategies are implemented to minimize the 

likelihood of occurrence of each of the 

following conditions: 

1. Reduction in airplane safety margins or 

airplane functional capabilities, including 

those possibly caused by maintenance 

activity; 

2. An increase in flightcrew workload or 

conditions impairing flightcrew efficiency, 

and; 

3. Distress or injury to airplane occupants. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5, 

2007. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–1838 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27747; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–CE–030–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft Company Models 150 and 152 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) 

Models 150 and 152 airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require replacing 

the rudder stop, rudder stop bumper, 

and attachment hardware with a new 

rudder stop modification kit. This 

proposed AD also requires replacing the 

safety wire with jamnuts. This proposed 

AD results from two accidents where 

the rudder was found in the over-travel 

position with the stop plate hooked over 

the stop bolt heads. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent the rudder from 

traveling past the normal travel limit 

and becoming jammed in the over-travel 

position. This condition could result in 

loss of control. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 15, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Cessna 

Aircraft Company, Product Support, 

P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; 

telephone: (316) 517–5800; fax: (316) 

942–9006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Park, Aerospace Engineer, 1801 Airport 

Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 

67209; telephone: (316) 946–4123; fax: 

(316) 946–4107. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number, ‘‘FAA–2007–27747; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–CE–030–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

concerning this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

This AD results from two spin 

accidents involving Cessna Model 152 

airplanes where the rudder was found 

in the over-travel position with the stop 

plate hooked over the stop bolt heads. 

In the first accident, which occurred 

in Canada, a flight instructor and 

student pilot were unable to recover 

after performing a spin maneuver. When 

the airplane was inspected, the rudder 

was found jammed. 

In the second accident the rudder 

bumper was found to be installed 

incorrectly, which resulted in a rudder 

jam during an attempted spin recovery. 

Upon recovery of the airplanes after 

the accidents, both accident airplanes 

had their rudder stop plates hooked 

over the stop bolts. After examining the 

accident airplanes and other Cessna 

Models 150 and 152 airplanes, accident 

investigators determined that, under 

certain conditions, it is possible to jam 

the rudder past its normal travel limit. 

The jam occurs when the stop plate is 

forced aft of the stop bolt head. The 

forward edge of the stop plate can then 

become lodged under the head of the 

stop bolt causing the rudder to jam in 

this over-travel position. Recovery from 

a spin may not be possible with the 

rudder jammed beyond the normal 

rudder travel stop limits. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in loss of control. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS