918 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the employee is separated based on 

unacceptable performance); or 

(2) An involuntary separation for 

reasons other than misconduct or 

unacceptable performance (e.g., an 

involuntary separation resulting from a 

reduction in force or medical reasons). 

§ 537.108 Loss of eligibility for student 

loan repayment benefits. 

(a) An employee receiving student 

loan repayment benefits from an agency 

is ineligible for continued benefits from 

that agency if the employee—

(1) Separates from the agency; 

(2) Does not maintain an acceptable 

level of performance, as determined 

under standards and procedures 

prescribed by the agency; or 

(3) Violates a condition in the service 

agreement, if the agreement specifically 

provides that eligibility is lost when the 

condition is violated. 

(b) For the purpose of applying 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an 

acceptable level of performance is one 

that is equivalent to level 3 (‘‘Fully 

Successful’’ or equivalent) or higher, as 

described in 5 CFR 430.208(d). An 

employee loses eligibility for student 

loan repayment benefits if his or her 

most recent official performance 

evaluation does not meet this 

requirement. 

§ 537.109 Employee reimbursements to 

the Government. 

(a) An employee is indebted to the 

Federal Government and must 

reimburse the paying agency for the 

amount of any student loan repayment 

benefits received under a service 

agreement if he or she—

(1) Fails to complete the period of 

service required in the applicable 

service agreement (except as provided 

by paragraph (b) of this section); or 

(2) Violates any other condition that 

specifically triggers a reimbursement 

requirement under the agreement. 

(b) An agency may not apply 

paragraph (a) of this section based on an 

employee’s failure to complete the 

required period of service established 

under a service agreement if—

(1) The employee is involuntarily 

separated for reasons other than 

misconduct or unacceptable 

performance; or 

(2) The employee leaves the paying 

agency voluntarily to enter into the 

service of any other agency, unless 

reimbursement to the agency is 

otherwise required in the service 

agreement, as provided by § 537.107(e). 

(c) If an agency and an employee 

mutually agree to modify an existing 

service agreement to provide additional 

student loan repayment benefits for 

additional service (as provided by 

§ 537.107(b)), the modified service 

agreement may stipulate that, if the 

employee completes the initial service 

period but fails to complete the 

additional service period, he or she is 

required to reimburse the paying agency 

only for the amount of any student loan 

repayment benefits received during the 

additional service period. 

(d) If an employee fails to reimburse 

the paying agency for the amount owed 

under paragraph (a) of this section, a 

sum equal to the amount outstanding is 

recoverable from the employee under 

the agency’s regulations for collection 

by offset from an indebted Government 

employee under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 5 

CFR part 550, subpart K, or through the 

appropriate provisions governing 

Federal debt collection if the individual 

is no longer a Federal employee. 

(e) An authorized agency official may 

waive, in whole or in part, a right of 

recovery of an employee’s debt if he or 

she determines that recovery would be 

against equity and good conscience or 

against the public interest. (See 5 U.S.C. 

5379(c)(3).) 

(f) Any amount reimbursed by, or 

recovered from, an employee under this 

section must be credited to the 

appropriation account from which the 

amount involved was originally paid. 

Any amount so credited must be merged 

with other sums in such account and 

must be available for the same purposes 

and time period, and subject to the same 

limitations (if any), as the sums with 

which merged. (See 5 U.S.C. 5379(c)(4).) 

§ 537.110 Records and reports. 

(a) Each agency must keep a record of 

each determination to provide student 

loan repayment benefits under this part 

and make such records available for 

review upon request by OPM. Such a 

record may be destroyed when 3 years 

have elapsed since the end of the 

service period specified in the 

employee’s service agreement. 

(b) By March 31st of each year, each 

agency must submit a written report to 

OPM containing information about 

student loan repayment benefits it 

provided to employees during the 

previous calendar year. Each report 

must include the following information: 

(1) The number of employees who 

received student loan repayment 

benefits; 

(2) The job classifications of the 

employees who received student loan 

repayment benefits; and 

(3) The cost to the Federal 

Government of providing student loan 

repayment benefits. 

[FR Doc. E7–101 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26696; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–SW–19–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson 

Helicopter Company Model R44 and 

R44 II Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes 

adopting a new airworthiness directive 

(AD) for robinson Helicopter Company 

(Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II 

helicopters that have a certain seat belt 

buckle (buckle) assembly installed. The 

AD would require removing the buckle 

assembly and the buckle assembly 

spacer, and replacing them with 

airworthy parts. This proposal is 

prompted by an accident in which a seat 

belt failed, and also by reports of 

cracking in the buckle assembly 

stainless support strap (support strap). 

The actions specified by the proposed 

AD are intended to prevent cracking in 

the support strap and failure of a seat 

belt. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically; 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

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; 

• Fax: 202–493–2251; or 

• 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. 

You may get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD from 

Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 

Airport Drive, Torrance, California 

90505, telephone (310) 539–0508, fax 

(310) 539–5198. 

You may examine the comments to 

this proposed AD in the AD docket on 

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


rmajette on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 919 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Venessa Stiger, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount 

Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712–

4137, telephone (562) 627–5337, fax 

(562) 627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any written 

data, views, or arguments regarding this 

proposed AD. Send your comments to 

the address listed under the caption 

ADDRESSES. Include the docket number 

‘‘FAA–2006–26696, Directorate 

Identifier 2006–SW–19–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 with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed 

rulemaking. Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, you can find and 

read the comments to any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual who sent or signed the 

comment. You may review the DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the docket that 

contains the proposed AD, any 

comments, and other information in 

person at the Docket Management 

System (DMS) Docket Office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647–

5227) is located at the plaza level of the 

Department of Transportation Nassif 

Building in Room PL–401 at 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after the DMS receives 

them. 

Discussion 

This document proposes adopting a 

new AD for Robinson model R44 

helicopters, through serial number (S/N) 

1576, and Model R44 II helicopters, 

through S/N 11107, that have a C628–

4, revision M or prior, buckle assembly 

installed. The AD would require, within 

100 hours time-in-service, removing the 

buckle assembly and the A130–52 

buckle assembly spacer, and replacing 

them with a C628–4, revision N buckle 

assembly and a new A130–52 buckle 

assembly spacer. The A130–52 buckle 

assembly spacers have been redesigned 

to be slightly longer than the previous 

A130–52 buckle assembly spacers, to 

reduce friction in the joint. This 

proposal is prompted by an 

investigation in which a seat belt failed 

during an accident, and also by reports 

of cracking in the buckle assembly 

support strap. Excessive bending of the 

buckles can damage their stainless 

support straps. The actions specified by 

the proposed AD are intended to 

prevent cracking in the support strap 

and failure of a seat belt. 

We have reviewed Robinson Service 

SB–56, dated March 29, 2006, which 

describes procedures for inspecting the 

buckle assemblies for cracks and 

replacing the buckle assemblies. This 

proposed AD would not require 

inspecting the buckle assemblies for 

cracks. 

This unsafe condition is likely to exist 

or develop on other helicopters of the 

same type design. Therefore, the 

proposed AD would require removing 

any C628–4, revision M or prior, buckle 

assembly and any A130–52 buckle 

assembly spacer, and replacing them 

with a C628–4, revision N buckle 

assembly and a new A130–52 buckle 

assembly spacer. Replacing the buckle 

assembly and buckle assembly spacer 

with a C628–4, Revision N buckle 

assembly and a new A130–52 buckle 

assembly spacer would be the 

terminating action for the requirements 

of this proposed AD. The replacement 

would be required to be accomplished 

by following specified portions of the 

service bulletin described previously. 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 900 helicopters of U.S. 

registry, and replacing a buckle 

assembly would take approximately 0.2 

work hour per buckle to accomplish at 

an average labor rate of $80 per work 

hour. Required parts would cost 

approximately $105 for each C628–4, 

revision N buckle assembly, and $8.25 

for each A130–52 buckle assembly 

spacer. Based on these figures, the total 

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators would be $517 for each 

helicopter, or $465,300 for the entire 

fleet, assuming that four buckle 

assemblies and buckle assembly spacers 

are replaced in each helicopter. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. Additionally, 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 that the 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 draft economic 

evaluation of the estimated costs to 

comply with this proposed AD. See the 

DMS to examine the draft economic 

evaluation. 

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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend part 

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
920 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Acting Chairman Nancy A. Nord filed a 

statement which is available from the Office of the 

Secretary or on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.cpsc.gov. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. Section 39.13 is amended by 

adding a new airworthiness directive to 

read as follows: 

Robinson Helicopter Company: Docket No. 

FAA–2006–26696; Directorate Identifier 

2006–SW–19–AD. 

Applicability: Model R44 helicopters, 

through serial number (S/N) 1576, and Model 

R44 II helicopters, through S/N 11107, with 

a seat belt buckle assembly (buckle assembly) 

part number C628–4, revision M or prior, 

installed, certificated in any category. 

Compliance: Required within 100 hours 

time-in-service, unless accomplished 

previously. 

To prevent cracking in the buckle assembly 

stainless support strap and failure of a seat 

belt, accomplish the following: 

(a) Remove the buckle assembly and any 

A130–52 buckle assembly spacer, and 

replace them with a C628–4, revision N 

buckle assembly and a new A130–52 buckle 

assembly spacer, in accordance with the 

Compliance Procedure, paragraph 3, in 

Robinson Helicopter Company Service 

Bulletin SB–56, dated March 29, 2006. The 

new A130–52 buckle assembly spacers have 

been redesigned to be slightly longer than the 

previous A130–52 buckle assembly spacers, 

to reduce friction in the joint. 

Note: Inspecting the buckle assembly for 

cracks is not required by this AD. 

(b) Replacing the buckle assembly and 

buckle assembly spacer with a C628–4, 

Revision N buckle assembly and a new 

A130–52 buckle assembly spacer is a 

terminating action for the requirements of 

this AD. 

(c) to request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Contact the Manager, Los Angeles 

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: 

Venessa Stiger, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 

90712–4137, telephone (562) 627–5337, fax 

(562) 627–5210, for information about 

previously approved alternative methods of 

compliance. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 

18, 2006. 

David A. Downey, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–26 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1500 

Children’s Jewelry Containing Lead; 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking; Request for Comments 

and Information 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC or Commission) is 

considering whether there may be a 

need to ban children’s metal jewelry 

containing more than 0.06% lead by 

weight in metal components. This 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) initiates a rulemaking 

proceeding under the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The 

Commission is soliciting written 

comments concerning the risks of injury 

associated with children’s jewelry 

containing lead, the regulatory options 

discussed in this notice, other possible 

ways to address these risks, and the 

economic impacts of the various 

regulatory alternatives. The Commission 

also invites interested persons to submit 

an existing standard, or a statement of 

intent to modify or develop a voluntary 

standard, to address the risk of injury 

described in this notice. 

DATES: Written comments and 

submissions in response to this 

document must be received by March 

12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be emailed to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. Comments 

should be captioned ‘‘Children’s Jewelry 

Containing Lead ANPR.’’ Comments 

may also be mailed, preferably in five 

copies, to the Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or delivered 

to the same address (telephone (301) 

504–7923). Comments also may be filed 

by facsimile to (301) 504–0127. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristina Hatlelid, PhD, M.P.H., 

Directorate for Health Sciences, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 

Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504–

7254, e-mail khatlelid@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On May 16, 2006, the CPSC docketed 

Sierra Club’s request for a ban on 

children’s jewelry containing more than 

0.06% lead by weight as a petition 

under the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act (FHSA) (Petition No. HP 

06–1). 71 FR 35416. Information 

obtained from the petition and CPSC 

staff investigations indicate that excess 

lead exposure may result when children 

ingest metal jewelry containing more 

than 0.06% lead by weight in metal 

components. On December 11, 2006, the 

Commission voted to grant the petition 

and begin a rulemaking proceeding to 

address the risk of injury described in 

this notice.1

B. The Risk of Injury 

The scientific community generally 

recognizes a level of 10 micrograms of 

lead per deciliter of blood (μg/dL) as a 

level of concern with respect to lead 

poisoning in children. Continuing 

national, state and local efforts to 

remove lead hazards from children’s 

environments (e.g., eliminating lead 

from household paint, gasoline, and 

food cans) have resulted in reductions 

in mean blood lead levels (BLLs) and in 

the number of children with BLLs 

exceeding 10 μg/dL. Data from a recent 

national survey indicated that an 

estimated 310,000 U.S. children aged 

one to five years have BLLs exceeding 

this level (about 1.6 percent of children 

aged one to five years). Currently, leadbased paint in older housing remains 

the most common source for excess lead 

exposure for children, but exposures 

from other sources of lead, such as 

certain ethnic medicines, imported 

candy and spices, ceramicware, and 

other types of consumer products, 

including jewelry, have been 

documented. 

Investigations by the CPSC Laboratory 

staff indicated that the extractability of 

lead from children’s metal jewelry is 

strongly associated with the lead 

content of these items. Staff 

investigations also indicated that when 

metal jewelry is ingested by children, 

excess lead exposure is likely for items 

that contain more than 0.06% lead, and 

that the amount of exposure likely 

increases with increasing lead content 

in the item. 

C. Statutory Authority 

This proceeding is conducted 

pursuant to the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261 

et seq. Section 2(f)(1)(A) of the FHSA 

defines ‘‘hazardous substance’’ to 

include any substance or mixture of 

substances which is toxic and may 

cause substantial illness as a proximate 

result of any customary or reasonably 

foreseeable handling or use, including 

reasonably foreseeable ingestion by 

children. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A). 

Under section 2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA, 

a substance is a ‘‘banned hazardous 

substance’’ if the Commission 

determines that, ‘‘notwithstanding such 

cautionary labeling as is or may be 

required under this Act for that 

substance, the degree or nature of the 

hazard involved in the presence or use 


rmajette on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS