9652 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 42 / Monday, March 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

FSIS is providing an opportunity for 

comment on whether the uniform 

compliance date established in this final 

rule should be modified or revoked. 

Executive Order 12866: Benefit-Cost 

Analysis 

FSIS has examined the impacts of the 

final rule under Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies 

to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). This 

action has been determined to be not 

significant and, therefore, has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Establishing a uniform compliance 

date for all future Federal food product 

labeling regulations affecting the meat 

and poultry industry that are issued by 

FSIS over a two year period will 

eliminate potentially burdensome 

requirements otherwise faced by the 

industry. 

The regulation also greatly limits the 

possibility of potentially conflicting 

compliance dates for labeling 

requirements developed for meat and 

poultry products and labeling 

requirements developed for non-meat 

and non-poultry products. It thus 

provides for an orderly industry 

adjustment to any new labeling 

requirements. Labeling changes in 

response to Federal regulations will 

likely be less frequent, and 

establishments will be able to plan for 

full utilization of their labeling stocks. 

Need for the Rule 

Establishing uniform compliance 

dates for food labeling regulations 

issued within specified time periods 

minimizes the economic impact of label 

changes for industry and may indirectly 

benefit consumers if cost savings are 

passed on in the form of lower prices. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

This rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Consequently, 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

is not required (5 U.S.C. 601–612). The 

uniform compliance date does not 

impose any burden on small entities. 

The Agency will conduct regulatory 

flexibility analyses of future labeling 

regulations if such analyses are 

required. 

Paperwork Requirements 

There are no paperwork or 

recordkeeping requirements associated 

with this policy under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520). 

Expected Environmental Effects 

The establishment of a uniform 

compliance date for food labeling 

regulations is an activity that will not 

have a significant individual or 

cumulative effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, this action is 

appropriately subject to the categorical 

exclusion from the preparation of an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement 

provided under 7 CFR 1b.4(6) of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

regulations. 

Additional Public Notification 

Public awareness of all segments of 

rulemaking and policy development is 

important. Consequently, in an effort to 

ensure that minorities, women, and 

persons with disabilities are aware of 

this rule, FSIS will announce it on-line 

through the FSIS Web page located at 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_

policies/2007_Interim_&_Final_Rules_

Index/index.asp. 

The Regulations.gov Web site is the 

central online rulemaking portal of the 

United States government. It is being 

offered as a public service to increase 

participation in the Federal 

government’s regulatory activities. FSIS 

participates in Regulations.gov and will 

accept comments on documents 

published on the site. The site allows 

visitors to search by keyword or 

Department or Agency for rulemakings 

that allow for public comment. Each 

entry provides a quick link to a 

comment form so that visitors can type 

in their comments and submit them to 

FSIS. The Web site is located at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. 

FSIS also will make copies of this 

Federal Register publication available 

through the FSIS Constituent Update, 

which is used to provide information 

regarding FSIS policies, procedures, 

regulations, Federal Register notices, 

public meetings, recalls, and other types 

of information that could affect or 

would be of interest to our constituents 

and stakeholders. The update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail 

subscription service consisting of 

industry, trade, and farm groups, 

consumer interest groups, allied health 

professionals, scientific professionals, 

and other individuals who have 

requested to be included. The update 

also is available on the FSIS Web page. 

Through Listserv and the Web page, 

FSIS is able to provide information to a 

much broader, more diverse audience. 

In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail 

subscription service that provides an 

automatic and customized notification 

when popular pages are updated, 

including Federal Register publications 

and related documents. This service is 

available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 

news_and_events/email_subscription/ 

and allows FSIS customers to sign up 

for subscription options across eight 

categories. Options range from recalls to 

export information to regulations, 

directives and notices. Customers can 

add or delete subscriptions themselves 

and have the option to password protect 

their account. 

Done at Washington, DC, on: February 27, 

2007. 

David P. Goldman, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–3725 Filed 3–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26048; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–191–AD; Amendment 

39–14967; AD 2007–05–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 

Douglas Model 717–200 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

McDonnell Douglas Model 717–200 

airplanes. This AD requires replacing 

certain attaching hardware of the 

bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left 

and right wing vent boxes with new 

electrical bonding attaching hardware, 

doing resistance testing of the new 

electrical bonds, and doing fuel leakage 

testing of the reworked nipple 

assemblies. This AD results from fuel 

system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to 

provide a conductive path, from the 

bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left 

and right wing vent boxes to the 

airframe structure inside the wing fuel 

tanks, to dissipate high-amperage 

lightning-induced currents, which 

might otherwise create an ignition 

source for fuel vapors inside the wing 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 42 / Monday, March 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 9653 

vent boxes and lead to an explosion of 

the fuel tanks. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 

9, 2007. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of April 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 

California 90846, Attention: Data and 

Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for the service information 

identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 

telephone (562) 627–5262; fax (562) 

627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (AD) docket on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility office 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket Management Facility office 

(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to certain McDonnell Douglas 

Model 717–200 airplanes. That NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60446). That 

NPRM proposed to require replacing 

certain attaching hardware of the 

bulkhead nipple assemblies of the left 

and right wing vent boxes with new 

electrical bonding attaching hardware, 

doing resistance testing of the new 

electrical bonds, and doing fuel leakage 

testing of the reworked nipple 

assemblies. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Request To Clarify Service Information 

Requirement 

One commenter, Hawaiian Airlines, 

requests that we clarify what service 

information is acceptable for 

compliance with the AD. The 

commenter asserts that the NPRM states 

that the use of Boeing Service Bulletin 

717–28–0011, Revision 2, dated July 19, 

2006, is acceptable for compliance. 

However, the commenter states that, 

although Revision 2 of the service 

bulletin added a leakage test of the 

reworked nipple assemblies, Revision 2 

states that no further work is required. 

Therefore, the commenter inquires 

whether compliance with earlier 

revisions of the service information will 

be acceptable. 

We agree that there may be some 

confusion here. Service Bulletin 717–

28–0011, Revision 1, dated January 24, 

2006; and Revision 2, dated July 19, 

2006; both state that no further work is 

required. However, Revision 1 added a 

‘‘leak check,’’ and Revision 2 states that 

a ‘‘fueling capacity and leak check 

procedure’’ has been added. In fact, the 

fueling capacity and leak check 

procedure specified in Revision 2 

combines the fuel leakage test from the 

original issue of the service bulletin, 

dated April 16, 2004, and the leak check 

from Revision 1 into a single step, Work 

Instruction 3.B.14., ‘‘fuel leakage test.’’

Work Instruction 3.B.14. cites a different 

airplane maintenance manual (AMM) 

chapter than the original issue or 

Revision 1 of the service bulletin (AMM 

28–11–00). Additionally, the remaining 

Work Instruction steps have been 

renumbered. However, if an operator 

accomplished the actions specified in 

the original issue or Revision 1 of the 

service bulletin prior to the effective 

date of the AD, and no leakage of fuel 

has since occurred in the subject areas, 

no additional work is required for 

compliance with the corresponding 

requirements of the AD. We have 

revised paragraph (g) of the AD to 

include the original issue of the service 

bulletin. 

Request for Clarification of Class ‘L’ 

Reference 

Another commenter, AirTran 

Airways, states that it supports the 

NPRM, but expresses confusion 

regarding the term ‘‘class ‘L’ ’’ that 

appears in Figure 1 of Boeing Service 

Bulletin 717–28–0011, Revision 2. The 

commenter states that, although note (e) 

of Figure 1 specifies to: ‘‘Do class ‘L’

resistance test * * * ’’ and ‘‘Refer to 

SWPM [standard wiring practices 

manual] 20–50–01,’’ Section 20–50–01 

of the Boeing SWPM does not identify 

a class ‘L,’ but rather provides a 

maximum direct current (DC) resistance 

and path for lightning protection. The 

commenter therefore requests that we 

clarify the reference to class ‘L’ in the 

final rule. 

We partially agree. It is true that note 

(e) of Figure 1 of the service bulletin 

refers to a class ‘L’ resistance test, while 

Section 20–50–01 of the Boeing SWPM 

no longer refers to class ‘L.’ Class ‘L’ had 

to do with lightning protection, 

specified a maximum resistance of 

0.0025 ohm, and appeared in earlier 

versions of the SWPM. However, 

although the term ‘‘class ‘L’ ’’ no longer 

appears in the SWPM, note (e) of Figure 

1 of the service bulletin specifies the 

resistance test retained in the SWPM, 

which states that the maximum 

resistance must not exceed 2.5 

milliohms (0.0025 ohm). We have 

determined that the term ‘‘class ‘L’ ’’ is 

not important in this context, and the 

directions of note (e) of Figure 1 of the 

service bulletin are otherwise acceptable 

as written; however, for clarity, we have 

added a note after paragraph (f) of the 

AD concerning this issue. 

Request To Revise Compliance Time 

The same commenter notes that the 

compliance time in the NPRM does not 

match that in the service bulletin. The 

commenter states that the NPRM 

specifies a reduced compliance time of 

78 months due to the nature of the 

unsafe condition, and that this 

difference has been coordinated with 

Boeing. The commenter suggests that 

the service bulletin should be revised to 

match the compliance time required by 

the AD. 

We do not agree. As stated in the 

NPRM, Boeing concurs with the 

proposed compliance time. The 

compliance time is clearly stated in the 

NPRM. Therefore, there is no safetyrelated purpose for revising the service 

bulletin. Further, we do not have the 

authority to require Boeing to revise the 

service bulletin to match the 

compliance time required by this AD. 

Therefore, we do not find it necessary 

to pursue any change to the service 

bulletin. 

Request To Publish Incorporation by 

Reference (IBR) Documents on the 

Docket Management System (DMS) 

The Modification and Replacement 

Parts Association (MARPA) asserts that 

IBR documents should be made 

available to the public by publication in 

the DMS, keyed to the action that 

incorporates them. MARPA therefore 

requests that such documents be 

published in the DMS prior to release of 

the final rule. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
9654 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 42 / Monday, March 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

We do not agree with this request. We 

are currently in the process of reviewing 

issues surrounding the posting of 

service bulletins on the DMS as part of 

an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly 

examined all aspects of this issue and 

have made a final determination, we 

will consider whether our current 

practice needs to be revised. No change 

to the AD is necessary in this regard. 

Request To Add FAA Statement of 

Intent 

MARPA requests that, during the 

NPRM stage of AD rulemaking, the FAA 

state its intent to IBR any relevant 

service information. MARPA states that 

without such a statement in the NPRM, 

it is unclear whether we will IBR the 

relevant service information in the final 

rule. 

We do not concur with MARPA’s 

request. When we reference certain 

service information in a proposed AD, 

the public can assume we intend to IBR 

that service information, as required by 

the Office of the Federal Register. No 

change to the AD is necessary in regard 

to this request. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD with the change described 

previously. We have determined that 

this change will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 138 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

This AD affects about 108 airplanes of 

U.S. registry. The required actions take 

about 6 work hours per airplane, at an 

average labor rate of $80 per work hour. 

The manufacturer states that it will 

supply required parts to the operators at 

no cost. Based on these figures, the 

estimated cost of the AD for U.S. 

operators is $51,840, or $480 per 

airplane. 

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 have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

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 this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2007–05–06 McDonnell Douglas: 

Amendment 39–14967. Docket No. 

FAA–2006–26048; Directorate Identifier 

2006–NM–191–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective April 9, 

2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas 

Model 717–200 airplanes, certificated in any 

category; as identified in Boeing Service 

Bulletin 717–28–0011, Revision 2, dated July 

19, 2006. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from fuel system 

reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We 

are issuing this AD to provide a conductive 

path, from the bulkhead nipple assemblies of 

the left and right wing vent boxes to the 

airframe structure inside the wing fuel tanks, 

to dissipate high-amperage lightning-induced 

currents, which might otherwise create an 

ignition source for fuel vapors inside the 

wing vent boxes and lead to an explosion of 

the fuel tanks. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Installing Electrical Bonding, and Resistance 

and Fuel Leakage Testing 

(f) Within 78 months after the effective 

date of this AD, replace certain attaching 

hardware of the bulkhead nipple assemblies 

of the left and right wing vent boxes with 

new electrical bonding attaching hardware, 

do resistance testing of the new electrical 

bonds, and do fuel leakage testing of the 

reworked nipple assemblies; in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Service Bulletin 717–28–0011, 

Revision 2, dated July 19, 2006. 

Note 1: Note (e) of Figure 1 of the service 

bulletin refers to a class ‘L’ resistance test. 

However, we have determined that the term 

‘‘class ‘L’ ’’ is not important in this context 

and the directions of note (e) of Figure 1 of 

the service bulletin are otherwise acceptable 

as written. 

Actions Accomplished According to 

Previous Issue of Service Bulletin 

(g) Actions accomplished before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 717–28–0011, dated 

April 16, 2004; or Revision 1, dated January 

24, 2006; are acceptable for compliance with 

the corresponding actions specified in this 

AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, ANM–116, 

International Branch, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 42 / Monday, March 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 9655 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(i) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 

717–28–0011, Revision 2, dated July 19, 

2006, to perform the actions that are required 

by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of this document in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long 

Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, 

Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: 

Data and Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 

(D800–0024), for a copy of this service 

information. You may review copies at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/ 

cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

21, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–3560 Filed 3–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26489; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–CE–74–AD; Amendment 39–

14966; AD 2007–05–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA—

Groupe AEROSPATIALE Models M.S. 

760, M.S. 760 A, and M.S. 760 B 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued 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: 

Following Safety Alert No. SA–006, issued 

by the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) on aircraft icing, it was impossible to 

demonstrate that the aircraft can safely 

takeoff when contaminated by frost, ice, 

snow, or slush, and fly into icing conditions. 

We are issuing this AD to require 

actions to correct the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 

9, 2007. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of April 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4119; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined 

process will allow us to adopt MCAI 

safety requirements in a more efficient 

manner and will reduce safety risks to 

the public. This process continues to 

follow all FAA AD issuance processes to 

meet legal, economic, Administrative 

Procedure Act, and Federal Register 

requirements. We also continue to meet 

our technical decision-making 

responsibilities to identify and correct 

unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated 

products. 

This AD references the MCAI and 

related service information that we 

considered in forming the engineering 

basis to correct the unsafe condition. 

The AD contains text copied from the 

MCAI and for this reason might not 

follow our plain language principles. 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 483). 

That NPRM proposed to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

Following Safety Alert No. SA–006, issued 

by the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) on aircraft icing, it was impossible to 

demonstrate that the aircraft can safely 

takeoff when contaminated by frost, ice, 

snow, or slush and fly into icing conditions. 

The MCAI requires operational 

limitation on takeoff with 

contamination and requires a pre-takeoff 

check in ground icing conditions and 

flight into icing conditions. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM or 

on the determination of the cost to the 

public. 

We further analyzed this AD and 

determined that the limitation that 

prohibits TAKEOFF WITH FROST, ICE, 

SNOW, OR SLUSH ON THE WING, 

CONTROL SURFACES, HORIZONTAL 

TAIL, AND AIR INTAKES, * * * 

should be * * * WING, CONTROL 

SURFACES, HORIZONTAL TAIL, OR 

AIR INTAKES, * * * This meets the 

other airworthiness authority’s intent 

and the FAA’s intent of assuring that 

takeoff is prohibited if ice, snow, or 

slush is present on one of those surfaces 

instead of all the surfaces. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed except for the change 

described above. We determined that 

this change will not increase the 

economic burden on any operator or 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Differences Between This 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 a U.S. 

court of law. 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 required different 

actions in this AD from those in the 

MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. 

Any such differences are described in a 

separate paragraph of the AD. These 

requirements, if any, take precedence 

over the actions copied from the MCAI. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

41 products of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 1 workhour per product to comply with this 

AD. The average labor rate is $80 per 

work-hour. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. 

operators to be $3,280, or $80 per 

product. 

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: 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES