Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14715 

will complement current regulations by 

requiring periodic demonstrations by 

applicable local, State and Federal 

entities to ensure that nuclear power 

plants can be adequately protected 

against radiological sabotage greater 

than the DBT level. Accordingly, the 

petitioners request that the NCR amend 

its regulations related to emergency 

preparedness as described previously in 

the section titled, ‘‘The Proposed 

Amendment.’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of March 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 07–1543 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22918; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–172–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A319–100 and A320–200 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier 

NPRM for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) that applies to certain Airbus 

Model A319–100 and A320–200 series 

airplanes. The original NPRM would 

have required repetitive inspections of 

the wing-tank fuel pumps, canisters, 

and wing fuel tanks for detached 

identification labels, and corrective 

action if necessary. The original NPRM 

resulted from several incidents of 

detached plastic identification labels 

found floating in the wing fuel tanks. 

This action revises the original NPRM 

by expanding the applicability and 

mandating modification of the fuel 

strainers at the fuel pump and suction 

bypass intakes. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to prevent plastic 

identification labels being ingested into 

the fuel pumps and consequently 

entering the engine fuel feed system, 

which could result in an engine 

shutdown. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by April 23, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

supplemental NPRM. 

• 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 

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. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2141; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this supplemental NPRM. 

Send your comments to an address 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include 

the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–

2005–22918; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NM–172–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We 

will consider all comments received by 

the closing date and may amend this 

supplemental NPRM in light of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments submitted, 

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 supplemental NPRM. Using the 

search function of that web site, anyone 

can find and read the comments in any 

of our dockets, including the name of 

the individual who sent the comment 

(or signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

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 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 in the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in ADDRESSES. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) for an airworthiness directive 

(AD) (the ‘‘original NPRM’’). The 

original NPRM applies to certain Airbus 

Model A319–100 and A320–200 series 

airplanes. The original NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 10, 2005 (70 FR 68379). The 

original NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive inspections of the wing-tank 

fuel pumps, canisters, and wing fuel 

tanks for detached identification labels, 

and corrective action if necessary. 

Since the original NPRM was issued, 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, superseded French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–121, 

dated July 20, 2005, and issued EASA 

airworthiness directive 2006–0236, 

dated August 10, 2006. The French 

airworthiness directive was referred to 

in the original NPRM. The EASA 

airworthiness directive expands the 

applicability and mandates the 

modification of the fuel strainers at the 

fuel pump and suction bypass intakes, 

which terminates the repetitive 

inspections. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1102, Revision 02, including 

Appendix 01, dated July 10, 2006 

(Revision 01, dated February 11, 2005, 

was referred to in the original NPRM as 

the appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

repetitive detailed visual inspections for 

detached identification labels in the 

four wing-tank fuel pumps and 

canisters). The procedures in Revision 

02 are essentially the same as those in 

Revision 01; however, Revision 02 

revises the accomplishment timescales, 

updates the effectivity, and contains 

editorial changes. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
14716 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Airbus has also issued Service 

Bulletin A320–57–1117, Revision 02, 

including Appendix 01, dated March 

13, 2006. We referred to the original 

issue in the original NPRM as the 

appropriate source of service 

information for accomplishing the 

repetitive detailed visual inspections for 

detached identification labels in the 

collector cells between ribs 1 and 2, the 

surge tank between ribs 22 and 26, and 

the wing fuel tank and vent box. 

Additional work is necessary for 

airplanes on which the original issue of 

the service bulletin was accomplished. 

The procedures specified in subsequent 

revisions of the service bulletin include 

removing the labels, marking the 

fastener data on the wing structure with 

black ink on a white background, and 

restoring the primer before marking the 

fastener data on the wing structure. An 

additional inspection of work 

accomplished in accordance with 

previous issues of the service bulletin is 

also necessary. The inspection involves 

an adhesion test of the paint applied. 

In addition, Airbus has issued Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1149, dated June 14, 

2006. The service bulletin describes 

procedures for modifying the fuel 

strainers at the fuel pump and suction 

bypass intakes. The modification 

includes, among other things, installing 

support brackets for the fuel pump 

strainers; installing new, improved fuel 

pump strainer assemblies; and installing 

new, improved fuel pump suction valve 

strainer assemblies. Accomplishing this 

modification eliminates the need for the 

repetitive inspections specified in 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1102. Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1149 also 

recommends prior or concurrent 

accomplishment of the inspections 

specified in Service Bulletin A320–57–

1117. 

Accomplishing the actions specified 

in the service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. The EASA mandated the 

service information and issued 

airworthiness directive 2006–0236, 

dated August 10, 2006, to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes in France. 

Comments 

We have considered the following 

comments on the original NPRM. 

Request To Change Applicability/Add 

Revised Service Information 

Airbus states that the EASA 

airworthiness directive corrects the 

applicability specified therein (and 

identified in the original NPRM). Airbus 

adds that the service bulletins have also 

been revised to list new manufacturer 

serial numbers (MSNs) in the 

applicability, including two U.S. MSNs. 

We infer that Airbus wants us to 

change the applicability in the original 

NPRM and add the revised service 

information. We agree to change the 

applicability in this supplemental 

NPRM to correspond with the EASA 

airworthiness directive specified in the 

Discussion section above, and to add the 

revised Airbus service bulletins 

specified in the Relevant Service 

Information section above. Therefore, 

we have changed paragraphs (c), (f), (g), 

and (i) of this supplemental NPRM 

accordingly. 

Requests To Extend Repetitive 

Inspection Interval or Remove Repetitive 

Inspections Specified in Paragraph (f) of 

the Original NPRM 

The Air Transport Association (ATA), 

on behalf of two of its members, 

Northwest Airlines and America West 

Airlines, states that the intent of the 

600-flight-hour repetitive inspections 

for detached identification labels in the 

four wing-tank fuel pumps and canisters 

is already being addressed per the 

current master minimum equipment list 

(MMEL) requirements, and would be 

superfluous and ineffective. America 

West asks that the one-pump restriction 

per MMEL 28–21–01 be removed on 

airplanes identified in Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1102. America West states 

that the pumps will be inspected at 

sufficient intervals to provide an 

acceptable level of assurance that the 

remaining pump is not clogged with 

labels. 

Northwest Airlines states that 

accomplishing the noted service 

bulletins and the current MMEL makes 

the inspection requirement unnecessary. 

Northwest Airlines adds that this is for 

two main reasons: First, the only 

remaining labels will be located in the 

vent box, and thus not normally 

immersed in fuel; therefore, it would be 

improbable that the labels would 

detach; second, per the MMEL, a wing 

tank fuel pump cannot be placed on the 

MEL if a ‘‘Fuel Tank LO PR’’ warning 

is displayed on the electronic 

centralized aircraft monitor. If this 

warning is displayed, the airplane is 

grounded pending a full inspection of 

the affected fuel system components. 

America West states that the 600- 

flight-hour repeat interval is not 

warranted due to the actions taken. 

America West previously accomplished 

the inspection of the fuel pumps and 

canisters specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1102, Revision 01. 

America West adds that it also 

previously accomplished the inspection 

of the fuel tank and vent box specified 

in Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–

1117. America West finds that these 

actions adequately removed all the 

labels and it has been over two years 

since the inspection was accomplished 

and no labels have been found in the 

fuel tanks or pumps during that 

timeframe. America West is concerned 

that repeating the inspection every 600 

flight hours would result in excessive 

removals of the pumps, which could 

lead to additional maintenance issues 

and possible safety issues, such as 

damage to the pump and/or fuel leaks. 

America West asks that the repetitive 

interval be extended to a C-check. 

America West also notes that it does 

not agree with the definition of a 

detailed inspection specified in the 

original NPRM. America West explains 

that the definition would be interpreted 

as a requirement to have the component 

torn down in a shop environment, and 

adds that experience has shown that the 

pump can have an adequate inspection 

at the airplane and the canisters can be 

inspected without removal from the 

airplane. 

We partially agree. We do not agree to 

remove the repetitive inspections 

required by paragraph (f) of this 

supplemental NPRM; however, we do 

agree to extend the repetitive interval 

for certain airplanes. We have changed 

paragraph (g) of this supplemental 

NPRM to require repeating the 

inspection at intervals not to exceed 600 

flight hours for airplanes on which the 

actions specified in Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–57–1117, Revision 02, 

dated March 13, 2006, have not been 

done; or at intervals not to exceed 3,000 

flight hours for airplanes on which 

those actions have been done. This 

supplemental NPRM would also require 

repeating the inspection before the next 

flight following any wing-tank fuel 

pump failure. This change coincides 

with the repetitive inspection interval 

required by the EASA airworthiness 

directive. In addition, we do not agree 

to remove the one-pump restriction per 

MMEL 28–21–01, as this reinforces 

maintaining safe flight of the airplane 

following any wing-tank fuel pump 

failure. 

Request To Use Alternate Marking 

Procedure 

ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. 

Airways, states that the repair procedure 

in Appendix 01 of Service Bulletin 

A320–57–1117 requests operators to 

apply varnish over the white painted 

area on which panel fastener 

information is written using indelible 

ink. U.S. Airways adds that it found that 

if a marker is used to re-identify the 

fastener information, as soon as the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14717 

recommended varnish is applied, the 

information gets smudged and smeared 

and is no longer legible. U.S. Airways 

used black paint MPN 

8000B00701CAQBTX instead of the 

recommended marker, and after the 

varnish is applied there is no smudging 

or smearing. U.S. Airways asks that the 

supplemental NPRM include approval 

to use this black paint (or equivalent) in 

lieu of Eddings 8404. 

We do not agree to change the 

supplemental NPRM to specify 

alternative marking methods. Revision 

02 of Service Bulletin A320–57–1117 

includes a note specifying that the 

varnish be applied with a single brush 

stroke, as subsequent brush strokes may 

cause damage to the lettering. However, 

if operators continue to have problems 

with the marking they may request an 

alternative method of compliance to 

obtain approval for using the black 

paint, in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (l) of 

this supplemental NPRM. We have 

made no change to the supplemental 

NPRM in this regard. 

Request To Change Work Hours 

US Airways states that the Costs of 

Compliance section in the original 

NPRM specifies 3 work hours (including 

an operational test) per airplane for the 

inspection specified in Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1102, and 6 work hours 

(including an operational test) for the 

inspection specified in Service Bulletin 

A320–57–1117. U.S. Airways notes that 

the service bulletins referred to in the 

Costs of Compliance section actually 

specify 10 and 47 hours respectively. 

U.S. Airways asks that the work hours 

be changed to specify between 24 and 

30 work hours for accomplishing the 

inspections. 

We do not agree to change the work 

hours as specified by U.S. Airways. The 

cost information describes only the 

direct costs of the specific actions 

required by this AD. Based on the best 

data available, the manufacturer 

provided the number of work hours 

necessary to do the required actions. 

These numbers represent the time 

necessary to perform only the actions 

actually required by this supplemental 

NPRM. We recognize that, in doing the 

actions required by a supplemental 

NPRM, operators might incur incidental 

costs in addition to the direct costs. The 

cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, 

however, typically does not include 

incidental costs such as the time 

required to gain access and close up, 

time necessary for planning, or time 

necessitated by other administrative 

actions. Those incidental costs, which 

might vary significantly among 

operators, are almost impossible to 

calculate. However, the work hours 

specified in Revision 02 of Service 

Bulletin A320–57–1117 were revised to 

include time necessary for additional 

procedures. Therefore, we have changed 

the work hours specified for the 

inspections in that service bulletin to 20 

work hours. We have made no further 

change to this supplemental NPRM 

regarding this issue. 

FAA’s Determination and Proposed 

Requirements of the Supplemental 

NPRM 

The changes discussed above expand 

the scope of the original NPRM; 

therefore, we have determined that it is 

necessary to reopen the comment period 

to provide additional opportunity for 

public comment on this supplemental 

NPRM. 

Difference Between the Supplemental 

NPRM and EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 

The EASA airworthiness directive 

mandates changes to the MMEL. This 

supplemental NPRM will not mandate 

those MMEL changes because the limits 

imposed by the FAA-approved MMEL 

meet or exceed those mandated by the 

EASA airworthiness directive. We have 

coordinated this issue with the EASA. 

Explanation of Change to Costs of 

Compliance Section 

After the original NPRM was issued, 

we reviewed the figures we have used 

over the past several years to calculate 

AD costs to operators. To account for 

various inflationary costs in the airline 

industry, we find it necessary to 

increase the labor rate used in these 

calculations from $65 per work hour to 

$80 per work hour. The costs of 

compliance, below, reflect this increase 

in the specified hourly labor rate. 

Costs of Compliance 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this supplemental NPRM. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Work hours 

Average 

labor rate 

per hour 

Parts Cost per airplane 

Number 

of U.S.- 

registered 

airplanes 

Fleet cost 

Inspection specified in 

Service Bulletin A320– 

28–1102.

3 $80 $0 $240, per inspection cycle 70 $16,800, per inspection 

cycle. 

Inspection specified in 

Service Bulletin A320– 

57–1117.

20 80 0 $1,600, per inspection 

cycle.

70 $112,000, per inspection 

cycle. 

Modification specified in 

Service Bulletin A320– 

28–1149.

20 80 0 $1,600 ............................... 70 $112,000. 

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 

proposed AD would not have federalism 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
14718 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this supplemental NPRM 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, 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2005–22918; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–172–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by April 23, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A319–100 and Model A320–200 series 

airplanes, certificated in any category, as 

identified in Airbus Service Bulletins A320–

28–1102, Revision 02, dated July 10, 2006, 

and A320–57–1117, Revision 02, dated 

March 13, 2006. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from several incidents 

of detached plastic identification labels 

found floating in the wing fuel tanks. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent plastic 

identification labels being ingested into the 

fuel pumps and consequently entering the 

engine fuel feed system, which could result 

in an engine shutdown. 

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. 

Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Actions of 

Four Wing-Tank Fuel Pumps and Canisters 

(f) Perform a detailed inspection for 

detached identification labels in the four 

wing-tank fuel pumps and canisters, and do 

all applicable corrective actions, by doing all 

the actions in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1102, Revision 02, 

dated July 10, 2006; except as provided by 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable 

corrective actions before further flight. 

Inspect at the earlier of the compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this 

AD. 

(1) Within 600 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) Before the next flight following any 

wing-tank fuel pump failure. 

(g) Repeat the inspection required by 

paragraph (f) of this AD thereafter at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) 

or (g)(2) of this AD, until accomplishment of 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by paragraph (i) of this AD have not 

been done: Repeat the inspection at intervals 

not to exceed the earlier of the times 

specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) 

of this AD. 

(i) 600 flight hours. 

(ii) Before the next flight following any 

wing-tank fuel pump failure. 

(2) For airplanes on which the inspections 

required by paragraph (i) of this AD have 

been done: Repeat the inspection at intervals 

not to exceed the earlier of the times 

specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) 

of this AD. 

(i) 3,000 flight hours. 

(ii) Before the next flight following any 

wing-tank fuel pump failure. 

Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a 

detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive 

examination of a specific item, installation, 

or assembly to detect damage, failure, or 

irregularity. Available lighting is normally 

supplemented with a direct source of good 

lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. 

Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying 

lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface 

cleaning and elaborate procedures may be 

required.’’

Credit for Actions Accomplished Using 

Previous Service Information 

(h) Inspections and corrective actions 

accomplished before the effective date of this 

AD in accordance with Airbus Service 

Bulletin A320–28–1102, dated August 20, 

2002; or Revision 01, dated February 11, 

2005; are considered acceptable for 

compliance with the corresponding actions 

specified in paragraph (f) of this AD. 

Inspection/Corrective Actions of the 

Collector Cells, Surge Tank, Wing Fuel Tank 

and Vent Box 

(i) Within 60 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection 

for detached identification labels in the 

collector cells between ribs 1 and 2, the surge 

tank between ribs 22 and 26, and the wing 

fuel tank and vent box, and do any applicable 

corrective actions, by doing all the applicable 

actions in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–57–1117, Revision 02, 

including Appendix 01, dated March 13, 

2006. Do any applicable corrective action 

before further flight. 

Modification 

(j) Before the accumulation of 162 months 

since first flight of the airplane, or within 6 

months after the effective date of this AD, 

whichever is later: Modify the fuel strainers 

at the fuel pump and suction bypass intakes 

by doing all the actions in accordance with 

Airbus Service Bulletin A320–28–1149, 

dated June 14, 2006. Accomplishment of the 

modification in this paragraph ends the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD. 

No Reporting Required 

(k) Although Airbus Service Bulletin 

A320–28–1102, Revision 02, dated July 10, 

2006, specifies submitting an inspection 

report to the manufacturer, this AD does not 

include that requirement. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(l)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, 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. 

Related Information 

(m) European Aviation Safety Agency 

airworthiness directive 2006–0236, dated 

August 10, 2006, also addresses the subject 

of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 

20, 2007. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5666 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS