11302 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Table No. in document Affected areas AD applies 

(i) Table No. 1 ............................................................................. Wing, Fuselage, Fin, Tailplane, Engine mounting, Flap system Yes. 

(ii) Table No. 2 ............................................................................ Electrical Power (all Items) ......................................................... No. 

(iii) Table No. 3 ............................................................................ Rudder pedal/brake master cylinder attachment brackets ......... Yes. 

(iv) Table No. 3 ........................................................................... Gust lock system ......................................................................... No. 

(v) Table No. 4 and Table No. 5 ................................................. Ice and rain protection (all items) ............................................... No. 

(vi) Table No. 6 and Table No. 7 ................................................ Landing gear (all items) .............................................................. Yes. 

(vii) Table No. 8 ........................................................................... Lighting (all items) ....................................................................... No. 

(viii) Table No. 9 .......................................................................... Doors (all items) .......................................................................... Yes. 

(ix) Table No. 10 ......................................................................... Fuselage (all items) ..................................................................... Yes. 

(x) Table No. 11 .......................................................................... Stabilizers (all items) ................................................................... Yes. 

(xi) Table No. 12 ......................................................................... Wings (all items) ......................................................................... Yes. 

(2) The owner/operator holding at least a 

private pilot certificate as authorized by 

section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do the actions 

of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft 

records showing compliance with this AD in 

accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: 

(1) The MCAI requires you to comply with 

a version of a maintenance manual that 

changes life limits. The FAA requires such 

changes through a change to the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section of the 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness or 

other FAA-approved maintenance document, 

and the FAA is mandating this through this 

AD. 

(2) We added information in paragraph (f) 

that allows the owner/operator to insert this 

information into the Airworthiness 

Limitations Section of the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness or other FAAapproved maintenance document. Without 

this information, a licensed mechanic would 

be required to do the action. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Staff, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, ATTN: 

Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4138; fax: (816) 

329–4090, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(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 Civil Aviation Authority 

AD No. G–2004–0024, Issue Date: September 

22, 2004, EASA approved on September 16, 

2004, under approval number 2004–9648, for 

related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 

6, 2007. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–4518 Filed 3–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27361; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–237–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A310 Series Airplanes; and Airbus 

Model A300–600 Series 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) 

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 explosion risks. Chafing of 

the fuel pump cables could result in 

short circuits leading to fuel pump 

failure, intermittent operation, arcing, 

and possible fuel tank explosion. 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 April 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• DOT Docket Web Site: Go to 

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

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• 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: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.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–

5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1622; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. This 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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 11303 

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 proposed AD references the 

MCAI and related service information 

that we considered in forming the 

engineering basis to correct the unsafe 

condition. The proposed AD contains 

text copied from the MCAI and for this 

reason might not follow our plain 

language principles. 

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–2007–27361; Directorate Identifier 

2006–NM–237–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:// 

dms.dot.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 European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2006–0284 R1, 

dated February 13, 2007 (referred to 

after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states that the FAA 

has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation 88). In their letters 

referenced 04/00/02/07/01–L296, dated 

March 4, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03–

L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA 

(Joint Aviation Authorities) 

recommended the application of a 

similar regulation to the National 

Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under this 

regulation, all holders of type 

certificates for passenger transport 

aircraft with either a passenger capacity 

of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 

7,500 pounds (3,402 kilograms) or more, 

which have received their certification 

since January 1, 1958, are required to 

conduct a design review against 

explosion risks. 

The MCAI design review found that 

fuel pump cables can possibly become 

chafed in their metallic conduits. The 

chafing of the fuel pump cables can 

result in short circuits leading to fuel 

pump failure, intermittent operation, 

arcing, and possible fuel tank explosion. 

The MCAI, which requires modification 

of the fuel pump wiring against short 

circuits, is a consequence of this design 

review. You may obtain further 

information by examining the MCAI in 

the AD docket. 

The FAA has examined the 

underlying safety issues involved in fuel 

tank explosions on several large 

transport airplanes, including the 

adequacy of existing regulations, the 

service history of airplanes subject to 

those regulations, and existing 

maintenance practices for fuel tank 

systems. As a result of those findings, 

we issued a regulation titled ‘‘Transport 

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design 

Review, Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements’’ (66 FR 23086, May 7, 

2001). In addition to new airworthiness 

standards for transport airplanes and 

new maintenance requirements, this 

rule included Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’

Amendment 21–78, and subsequent 

Amendments 21–82 and 21–83). 

Among other actions, SFAR 88 

requires certain type design (i.e., type 

certificate (TC) and supplemental type 

certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate 

that their fuel tank systems can prevent 

ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This 

requirement applies to type design 

holders for large turbine-powered 

transport airplanes and for subsequent 

modifications to those airplanes. It 

requires them to perform design reviews 

and to develop design changes and 

maintenance procedures if their designs 

do not meet the new fuel tank safety 

standards. As explained in the preamble 

to the rule, we intended to adopt 

airworthiness directives to mandate any 

changes found necessary to address 

unsafe conditions identified as a result 

of these reviews. 

In evaluating these design reviews, we 

have established four criteria intended 

to define the unsafe conditions 

associated with fuel tank systems that 

require corrective actions. The 

percentage of operating time during 

which fuel tanks are exposed to 

flammable conditions is one of these 

criteria. The other three criteria address 

the failure types under evaluation: 

single failures, single failures in 

combination with a latent condition(s), 

and in-service failure experience. For all 

four criteria, the evaluations included 

consideration of previous actions taken 

that may mitigate the need for further 

action. 

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) 

has issued a regulation that is similar to 

SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated 

body of the European Civil Aviation 

Conference (ECAC) representing the 

civil aviation regulatory authorities of a 

number of European States who have 

agreed to co-operate in developing and 

implementing common safety regulatory 

standards and procedures.) Under this 

regulation, the JAA stated that all 

members of the ECAC that hold type 

certificates for transport category 

airplanes are required to conduct a 

design review against explosion risks. 

We have determined that the actions 

identified in this AD are necessary to 

reduce the potential of ignition sources 

inside fuel tanks, which, in combination 

with flammable fuel vapors, could result 

in fuel tank explosions and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletins 

A300–24–6094, Revision 01, dated July 

18, 2006; and A310–24–2097, Revision 

01, dated October 11, 2006. The actions 

described in this service information are 

intended to correct the unsafe condition 

identified in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This 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 the State of 

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 provided by the State of 

Design Authority and determined the 

unsafe condition exists and is likely to 

exist or develop on other products of the 

same type design. 

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 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 

described in a separate paragraph of the 

proposed AD. These requirements, if 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
11304 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ultimately adopted, will take 

precedence over the actions copied from 

the MCAI. 

Costs of Compliance 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD would 

affect about 205 products of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 72 work-hours per product to 

comply with this proposed AD. The 

average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. 

Required parts would cost about $7,190 

per product. Where the service 

information lists required parts costs 

that are covered under warranty, we 

have assumed that there will be no 

charge for these costs. As we do not 

control warranty coverage for affected 

parties, some parties may incur costs 

higher than estimated here. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of the 

proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 

$2,654,750, or $12,950 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: 

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, 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: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2007–27361; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–237–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by April 12, 

2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310 

series airplanes; and Model A300–600 series 

airplanes; certificated in any category; all 

certified models, all serial numbers, except 

for aircraft which have received in 

production Airbus modification 13118 or 

Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310–24–2097 

or A300–24–6094. 

Reason 

(d) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states that 

the FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation 88). In their 

letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01–L296, 

dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/07/03–

L024, dated February 3, 2003, the JAA (Joint 

Aviation Authorities) recommended the 

application of a similar regulation to the 

National Aviation Authorities (NAA). Under 

this regulation, all holders of type certificates 

for passenger transport aircraft with either a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a 

payload capacity of 7,500 pounds (3,402 

kilograms) or more, which have received 

their certification since January 1, 1958, are 

required to conduct a design review against 

explosion risks. The MCAI design review 

found that fuel pump cables can possibly 

become chafed in their metallic conduits. 

The chafing of the fuel pump cables can 

result in short circuits leading to fuel pump 

failure, intermittent operation, arcing, and 

possible fuel tank explosion. The MCAI, 

which requires modification of the fuel pump 

wiring against short circuits, is a 

consequence of this design review. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

(1) Within 37 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Modify the inner and outer 

fuel pumps, route 1P and 2P harnesses in the 

LH (left-hand) wing and in the RH (righthand) wing in accordance with the 

instructions of Airbus Service Bulletins 

A300–24–6094, dated February 15, 2006; 

A300–24–6094, Revision 01, dated July 18, 

2006; A310–24–2097, dated February 15, 

2006; or A310–24–2097, Revision 01, dated 

October 11, 2006; as applicable. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(f) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, Attn: Tom Stafford, 

Aerospace Engineer, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 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. 

(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, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

has approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(g) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2006–

0284 R1, dated February 13, 2007; and 

Airbus Service Bulletins A300–24–6094, 

dated February 15, 2006; A300–24–6094, 

Revision 01, dated July 18, 2006; A310–24–

2097, dated February 15, 2006; and A310–

24–2097, Revision 01, dated October 11, 

2006; for related information. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 11305 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 7, 

2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–4534 Filed 3–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25852; Airspace 

Docket No. 06–AAL–29] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification to the Norton 

Sound Low, Woody Island Low, 

Control 1234L and Control 1487L 

Offshore Airspace Areas; Alaska 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend the following four Offshore 

Airspace Areas in Alaska: Norton Sound 

Low, Woody Island Low, Control 1234L 

and Control 1487L. This action proposes 

to describe the airspace west of 160° W. 

longitude as it is currently depicted on 

aeronautical charts. Some of the existing 

controlled airspace is described as 

domestic Class E5 airspace around 

Kodiak, AK. This airspace instead 

would be listed within the Woody 

Island Low Offshore Airspace Area. The 

FAA is proposing this action to provide 

additional controlled airspace for 

aircraft instrument flight rules (IFR) 

operations, and to correctly describe the 

existing offshore airspace areas in FAA 

Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations 

and Reporting Points, dated September 

1, 2006, and effective September 15, 

2006. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 27, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the Docket Management 

System, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2006–25852 and 

Airspace Docket No. 06–AAL–29, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of 

System Operations Airspace and AIM, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–

2006–25852 and Airspace Docket No. 

06–AAL–29) and be submitted in 

triplicate to the Docket Management 

System (see ADDRESSES section for 

address and phone number). You may 

also submit comments through the 

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

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2006–25852 and 

Airspace Docket No. 06–AAL–29.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

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

published rulemaking documents can 

also be accessed through the FAA’s Web 

page at http://www.faa.gov., or the 

Federal Register’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the office of the 

Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th 

Avenue 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Norton 

Sound Low, Woody Island Low, and 

Control 1487L Offshore Airspace Areas, 

AK, by lowering the floor to 1,200 feet 

MSL within a 45-mile radius of Hooper 

Bay Airport, within a 81.2-mile radius 

of Perryville Airport, within a 73-mile 

radius of Homer Airport, and within a 

73-mile radius of St. Michael Airport. 

The proposal would also modify Control 

1234L Offshore Airspace Area, AK, by 

lowering the floor to 1,200 feet above 

the surface within an 81.2-mile radius of 

Perryville Airport, AK. Additionally, 

this proposal would establish controlled 

airspace to support IFR operations at the 

Hooper Bay, Perryville, Homer and St. 

Michael Airports, AK. Additionally, 

controlled airspace extending upward 

from the surface, from 700 above the 

surface, and from 1,200 feet above the 

surface, would be established in Control 

1234L Offshore Airspace Area. While 

reviewing this action, an error in the 

Control 1234L Offshore Airspace 

description in FAAO 7400.9N was 

discovered. The Offshore Airspace Area 

Control 1234L begins at and extends 

west of 160°00′00′′ W. longitude. This 

airspace covers all the land west of this 

longitude including the Aleutian Island 

chain and the Pribilof Islands. Control 

1234L Offshore Airspace around or near 

the Alaskan airports of; Adak, Atka, 

Cold Bay, Dutch Harbor (Unalaska), 

Nelson Lagoon, Sand Point, Eareckson 

Air Station, St. George, Port Heiden, 

Homer, and Chignik, would be lowered 

from the 2,000 feet AGL floor to 

incorporate Class E domestic airspace. 

This action is concurrent with Airspace 

Docket No. 06–AAL–34, proposing 

revocation of the domestic airspace 

descriptions for these airports. 

Additionally, the airspace description in 

FAA Order 7400.9P for Control 1234L 

should refer to altitudes from ‘‘above the 

surface’’. The current description 

erroneously uses ‘‘MSL’’ for the airspace 

associated with the Chignik Airport, 

AK. The offshore airspace described 

from 1,200 feet would be amended to 

describe it from ‘‘above the surface’’. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS