Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 2603 

tree nuts, and less than 7 percent of the 

world’s hazelnut production. 

Last season, 85 percent of the 

domestically produced hazelnut kernels 

were marketed in the domestic market 

and 15 percent were exported. 

Domestically produced kernels 

generally command a higher price in the 

domestic market than imported kernels. 

The industry is continuing its efforts to 

develop and expand other markets with 

emphasis on the domestic kernel 

market. Small business entities, both 

producers and handlers, benefit from 

the expansion efforts resulting from this 

program. 

Inshell hazelnuts produced under the 

order compete well in export markets 

because of their high quality. Based on 

Board statistics, Europe has historically 

been the primary export market for U.S. 

produced inshell hazelnuts. Shipments 

have also been relatively consistent, not 

varying much from the 10 year average 

of 4,958 tons. Recent years, though, 

have seen a significant increase in 

export destinations. Last season, inshell 

shipments to Europe totaled 4,622 tons, 

representing just 38 percent of exports, 

with the largest share going to Germany. 

Inshell shipments to Southwest Pacific 

countries, and Hong Kong in particular, 

have increased dramatically in the past 

few years, rising to 50 percent of total 

exports of 12,042 tons for the 2005–2006 

marketing year. The industry continues 

to pursue export opportunities. 

There are some reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements under the order. The 

reporting and recordkeeping burdens 

are necessary for compliance purposes 

and for developing statistical data for 

maintenance of the program. The 

information collection requirements 

have been previously approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

OMB No. 0581–0178. The forms require 

information which is readily available 

from handler records and which can be 

provided without data processing 

equipment or trained statistical staff. As 

with all Federal marketing order 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. This rule does not 

change those requirements. 

The AMS is committed to complying 

with the E-Government Act, to promote 

the use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

In addition, USDA has not identified 

any relevant Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. 

Further, the Board’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

hazelnut industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meetings and participate in Board 

deliberations. Like all Board meetings, 

those held on August 24 and November 

15, 2006, were public meetings and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their views on this issue. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit information on the regulatory 

and informational impacts of this action 

on small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

This rule invites comments on the 

establishment of final free and restricted 

percentages for the 2006–2007 

marketing year under the hazelnut 

marketing order. Any comments 

received will be considered prior to 

finalization of this rule. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

Board’s recommendation, and other 

information, it is found that this interim 

final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined upon good cause 

that it is impracticable, unnecessary, 

and contrary to the public interest to 

give preliminary notice prior to putting 

this rule into effect and that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this action until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register 

because: (1) The 2006–2007 marketing 

year began July 1, 2006, and the 

percentages established herein apply to 

all merchantable hazelnuts handled 

from the beginning of the crop year; (2) 

the percentages make the full trade 

demand available so handlers can take 

advantage of inshell marketing 

opportunities; (3) handlers are aware of 

this rule, which was recommended at an 

open Board meeting, and need no 

additional time to comply with this 

rule; and (4) interested persons are 

provided a 60-day comment period in 

which to respond, and all comments 

timely received will be considered prior 

to finalization of this action. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982 

Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing 

agreements, Nuts, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 982 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 982—HAZELNUTS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 982 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. A new subpart and § 982.254 are 

added to read as follows: 

Subpart—Free and Restricted 

Percentages 

§ 982.254 Free and restricted 

percentages—2006–2007 marketing year. 

The final free and restricted 

percentages for merchantable hazelnuts 

for the 2006–2007 marketing year shall 

be 8.2840 percent and 91.7160 percent, 

respectively. 

Dated: January 16, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–763 Filed 1–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–19559; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NE–03–AD; Amendment 39–

14892; AD 2007–02–05] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc RB211 Trent 700 Series Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 700 

series turbofan engines. That AD 

currently requires initial and repetitive 

borescope inspections of the high 

pressure-and-intermediate pressure (HPIP) turbine internal and external oil vent 

tubes for coking and carbon buildup, 

and cleaning or replacing the vent tubes 

if necessary. This AD requires the same 

actions but uses more stringent tube 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2604 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

replacement criteria than the previous 

AD. This AD results from a recent 

incident where an RB211 Trent 700 

series turbofan engine had an oil vent 

tube rupture as a result of blockage, 

leading to significant loss of engine oil. 

The incident indicates that further 

measures are necessary to control 

carbon buildup in the oil vent tubes. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent internal 

oil fires due to coking and carbon 

buildup, that could cause uncontained 

engine failure and damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: Effective February 6, 2007. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the 

regulations as of February 6, 2007. 

We must receive any comments on 

this AD by March 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

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

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• 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–

0001. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, 

Derby, England; telephone: 011–44–

1332–249428; fax: 011–44–1332–

249223, for the service information 

identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Spinney, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7175; fax (781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 1, 2004, we issued AD 2004–

23–03, Amendment 39–13858 (69 FR 

64653, November 8, 2004). That AD 

requires initial and repetitive borescope 

inspections of the HP–IP turbine 

internal and external oil vent tubes for 

coking and carbon buildup, and 

cleaning or replacing the vent tubes if 

necessary. That AD was the result of a 

report of an RB211 Trent 700 series 

engine experiencing a disk shaft 

separation, overspeed of the IP turbine 

rotor, and multiple blade release of IP 

turbine blades. The findings suggested 

these events resulted from an internal 

oil fire in the HP–IP turbine oil vent 

tubes due to coking and carbon buildup. 

This fire led to a second fire in the 

internal air cavity below the IP turbine 

disk drive shaft. That condition, if not 

corrected, could result in uncontained 

engine failure and damage to the 

airplane. 

Actions Since AD 2004–23–03 Was 

Issued 

Since AD 2004–23–03 was issued, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the airworthiness 

authority for the European Union, 

notified us that an unsafe condition may 

exist on RB211 Trent 700 series turbofan 

engines. EASA advises that recently an 

oil vent tube ruptured as a result of 

blockage, leading to significant loss of 

engine oil, on an RB211 Trent 700 series 

turbofan engine. This incident indicates 

that further measures are necessary to 

control carbon buildup in the oil vent 

tubes. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed and approved the 

technical contents of RR Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211–72–AE302, 

Revision 3, dated September 20, 2006. 

That ASB describes procedures for 

borescope inspections, cleaning, and 

replacement if necessary of the internal 

and external oil vent tubes. For internal 

oil vent tubes to pass inspection, they 

must allow cleaning tool, number 

HU80298 to pass through them. AD 

2004–23–03 was less stringent in that it 

allowed tubes that an 8 mm or 6 mm 

diameter borescope could pass through, 

back into service. EASA classified this 

ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2006–

0355, dated December 4, 2006, in order 

to ensure the airworthiness of these 

RB211 Trent 700 series turbofan engines 

in Europe. 

Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement 

These engine models are 

manufactured in the United Kingdom 

and are type certificated for operation in 

the United States under the provisions 

of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 

applicable bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. Under this bilateral 

airworthiness agreement, EASA kept the 

FAA informed of the situation described 

above. We have examined the findings 

of EASA, reviewed all available 

information, and determined that AD 

action is necessary for products of this 

type design that are certificated for 

operation in the United States. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This AD 

Although no airplanes that are 

registered in the United States use these 

RB211 Trent 700 series turbofan 

engines, the possibility exists that the 

engines could be used on airplanes that 

are registered in the United States in the 

future. The unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

on other RB211 Trent 700 series 

turbofan engines of the same type 

design. This AD requires initial and 

repetitive borescope inspections of the 

HP-IP turbine internal and external oil 

vent tubes for coking and carbon 

buildup, and cleaning or replacing the 

vent tubes if necessary. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent internal oil fires due 

to coking and carbon buildup, that 

could cause uncontained engine failure 

and damage to the airplane. You must 

use the service information described 

previously to perform the actions 

required by this AD. 

FAA’s Determination of the Effective 

Date 

Since there are currently no domestic 

operators of this engine model, notice 

and opportunity for public comment 

before issuing this AD are unnecessary. 

Therefore, a situation exists that allows 

the immediate adoption of this 

regulation. 

Comments Invited 

This AD is a final rule that involves 

requirements affecting flight safety and 

was not preceded by notice and an 

opportunity for public comment; 

however, we invite you to send us any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments regarding this AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under 

ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘AD Docket No. 

FAA–2005–19559; Directorate Identifier 

2004–NE–03–AD’’ in the subject line of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of the rule that might suggest a 

need to modify it. 

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 AD. Using the 

search function of the DMS 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 2605 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

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

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the docket that 

contains the AD, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The Docket 

Office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is 

located on the plaza level of the 

Department of Transportation Nassif 

Building at the street address stated in 

ADDRESSES. Comments will be available 

in the AD docket shortly after the DMS 

receives them. 

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 the 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 summary of the costs 

to comply with this AD and placed it in 

the AD Docket. You may get a copy of 

this summary by sending a request to us 

at the address listed under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Under the authority delegated to me 

by the Administrator, the Federal 

Aviation Administration amends 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. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Amendment 39–13858 (69 FR 

64653, November 8, 2004), and by 

adding a new airworthiness directive, 

Amendment 39–14892, to read as 

follows: 

2007–02–05 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 

39–14892. Docket No. FAA–2005–19559; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NE–03–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) 

becomes effective February 6, 2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2004–23–03. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

RB211 Trent 768–60, RB211 Trent 772–60, 

and RB211 Trent 772B–60 series turbofan 

engines. These engines are installed on, but 

not limited to, Airbus A330–243, –341, –342 

and –343 series airplanes. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a recent incident 

where an RB211 Trent 700 series turbofan 

engine had an oil vent tube rupture as a 

result of blockage, leading to significant loss 

of engine oil. The incident indicates that 

further measures are necessary to control 

carbon buildup in the oil vent tubes. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent internal oil fires 

due to coking and carbon buildup, that could 

cause uncontained engine failure and damage 

to the airplane. 

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. 

Initial Inspections, Cleaning, and 

Replacements 

(f) Using the schedule in Table 1 of this 

AD, borescope-inspect and clean as 

necessary, the high pressure-andintermediate pressure (HP–IP) turbine 

internal oil vent tubes, external oil vent 

tubes, and bearing chamber. 

TABLE 1.—INITIAL INSPECTION SCHEDULE

If the engine or the 05 Module: Then initially inspect: 

Has reached 10,000 hours time-since-new (TSN) or reached 2,500 cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD.Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD. 

Has fewer than 10,000 hours TSN or fewer than 2,500 CSN on the effective date of this AD.Within 3 months after reaching 10,000 hours TSN or 2,500 CSN, 

whichever occurs first. 

Is returned for a shop visit ....................................................................... Before returning to service.

(g) If after cleaning, there is still carbon in 

the vent tube that prevents cleaning tool, 

number HU80298, from passing through the 

tube, then replace the internal oil vent tube 

within 10 cycles-in-service (CIS). 

(h) If after cleaning, there is still carbon of 

visible thickness in either of the two external 

oil vent tubes, then replace the external oil 

vent tube before further flight. 

Repetitive Inspections, Cleaning, and 

Replacements 

(i) Within 6,400 hours time-in-service since 

last inspection and cleaning, or within 1,600 

cycles-since-last inspection and cleaning, or 

at the next engine shop visit, whichever 

occurs first, borescope-inspect the HP-IP 

turbine internal and external oil vent tubes 

and bearing chamber, and clean the oil vent 

tubes as necessary. 

(j) If after cleaning there is still carbon in 

the internal oil vent tube that prevents 

cleaning tool, number HU80298, from 

passing through the tube, then replace the 

internal oil vent tube within 10 CIS. 

(k) If after cleaning there is still carbon of 

visible thickness, in either of the two external 

oil vent tubes, then replace the external oil 

vent tube before further flight. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
2606 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 13 / Monday, January 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Inspection and Cleaning Procedures 

(l) Use paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(4)(b) 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of RollsRoyce plc Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–

72–AE302, Revision 3, dated September 20, 

2006, to do borescope inspections, and 

cleaning of the oil vent tubes and bearing 

chamber. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(m) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(n) You must use Rolls-Royce plc Alert 

Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AE302, 

Revision 3, dated September 20, 2006, to 

perform the inspections and cleaning 

required by this AD. The Director of the 

Federal Register approved the incorporation 

by reference of this service bulletin in 

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

part 51. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, 

Derby, England; telephone: 011–44–1332–

249428; fax: 011–44–1332–249223, for a copy 

of this service information. You may review 

copies 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/ibrlocations.html. 

Related Information 

(o) European Aviation Safety Agency 

airworthiness directive No. 2006–0355, dated 

December 4, 2006, also addresses the subject 

of this AD. 

(p) Contact Christopher Spinney, 

Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA 01803; telephone (781) 238–7175; fax 

(781) 238–7199, for more information about 

this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

January 12, 2007. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–684 Filed 1–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26236 Directorate 

Identifier 2006–CE–66–AD; Amendment 39–

14891; AD 2007–02–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATAGroupe Aerospatiale TB 20 and TB 21 

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 reports of interference 

between the wing spar lower boom and 

the wheel fairing attaching screw. We 

are issuing this AD to require actions to 

correct the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

February 26, 2007. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of February 26, 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: 

Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4059; 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 November 22, 2006 (71 FR 

67506). That NPRM proposed to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states that there are 

reports of interference between the wing 

spar lower boom and the wheel fairing 

attaching screw causing an unsafe 

condition. The interference could, if left 

uncorrected, reduce the fatigue life of 

the wing spar with potentially 

catastrophic results. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

have considered the comment received. 

Comment Issue: Cost of Compliance 

EADS SOCATA states: 

Application of SB10–148–57 does not 

require specific part. So, the cost is 

negligible. EADS SOCATA estimates that it 

would take 1 work-hour to inspect and 

displace the screw. If repair is necessary, the 

cost depends on the damage. 

Our cost estimate included both the 

inspection and screw displacement 

costs as well as repair costs. We 

developed the repair cost estimate based 

on the information provided and 

assumed the worst case scenario if a 

repair was required. Since EADS 

SOCATA did not provide an estimate 

(work-hours or parts cost) if a repair is 

required and the FAA is required to 

provide this estimate to the public, we 

are keeping the language the same as the 

NPRM to account for worst case repair 

situations. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data, 

including the comment received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed. 

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 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, and take 

precedence over the actions copied from 

the MCAI. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES