27770 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 95 / Thursday, May 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket 

No. FAA–2007–27974; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–CE–040–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by June 18, 

2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the following 

airplanes certificated in any category: 

Model Serial Nos. 

DA 40 ..... All serial numbers beginning with 

40.006. 

DA 40F .. All serial numbers beginning with 

40.F001. 

All serial numbers beginning with 

40.FC001. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

‘‘A nose landing gear leg failed in area of 

the nose gear leg pivot axle. This airplane 

was mostly operated on grass runways and 

training operations. This failure was based on 

a fatigue crack developed in the pivot axle. 

Material inspections figured out that this 

crack may also develop on other serial No. 

pending the type of operation.’’

The MCAI requires repetitively inspecting 

the nose landing gear leg for cracks and 

replacing the nose landing gear leg if cracks 

are found. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this 

AD, inspect the nose landing gear leg for 

cracks. Repetitively inspect thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed 200 hours TIS. 

(2) Before further flight after any inspection 

in which cracks are found, replace the nose 

landing gear leg. After replacement, continue 

with the repetitive inspection requirement 

specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. 

(3) Do the actions required in paragraphs 

(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD following Diamond 

Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service 

Bulletin No. MSB40–046/1, No. MSBD4–046/ 

1, dated April 25, 2007, and the applicable 

maintenance manual. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Staff, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4145; fax: (816) 

329–4090. Before using any approved AMOC 

on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(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 Austro Control AD No. 

A–2005–005, dated November 15, 2005; and 

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH 

Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40–046/ 

1, No. MSBD4–046/1, dated April 25, 2007, 

for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 

10, 2007. 

Charles L. Smalley, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–9495 Filed 5–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 217, 241, 248, 250, 291, 

298 and 374a 

[Docket No. OST 2006–26053] 

RIN 2139–AA11 

Submitting Airline Data via the Internet 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) is hosting a public 

meeting to discuss the submission of air 

carrier traffic, financial, and consumer 

reports via a secure internet connection. 

The public meeting was requested by 

the Air Transport Association. DOT staff 

will demonstrate e-filing procedures 

and be available to answer questions. 

During the meeting, the DOT will 

propose a pilot program for a limited 

number of air carriers to test the internet 

filing system prior to the system 

becoming operational. A cross section of 

major, national, regional, commuter and 

foreign air carriers will be invited to 

volunteer to participate in the pilot 

program. 

DATES: The meeting will be held June 

21, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the new DOT headquarters building at 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. The room 

number will be announced at a later 

date. Persons attending the public 

meeting must pass through the building 

security; therefore, we are requesting 

that you register for attendance by 

e-mailing or calling Ms. Sharon Herman 

at Sharon.herman@dot.gov or (202) 

366–9059. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline 

Information, RTS–42, Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS), telephone number (202) 366–

4387, fax number (202) 366–3383 or 

e-mail bernard.stankus@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was 

published on December 20, 2006 (71 FR 

76226). You may review comments to 

the NPRM at http://www.dms.dot.gov, 

Docket 26053. 

Background 

Receiving and processing aviation 

data is an essential business process for 

the DOT. To increase efficiency and 

reduce costs of the filing process to both 

the air carriers and the government, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 95 / Thursday, May 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27771 

DOT has proposed that all aviation data 

collected by the BTS be transmitted via 

the internet (e-filing). To the maximum 

extent practicable, the proposed e-filing 

system will be user friendly. 

Automated, built-in data edits would 

alert filers of incomplete information, 

thus reducing filing errors and the need 

for corrective re-processing. E-filing is 

more secure than attaching files to 

e-mails. E-filing does not have the size 

limit constraints encountered by 

attachments to e-mail submissions. 

E-filing provides the submitters with 

immediate confirmation that the filing 

has been received by BTS. E-filing 

should eliminate the need for BTS to 

key punch hard copy records into its 

various data bases. 

During this public meeting, DOT 

representatives will answer questions 

about the proposed system, the pilot 

program and gather additional public 

comments. A summary of the public 

meeting will be placed in the 

rulemaking docket. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2007. 

Donald W. Bright, 

Assistant Director, Airline Information, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

[FR Doc. E7–9210 Filed 5–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 234 

Reporting Requirements for Aircraft 

Gate Returns 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) is hosting a public 

meeting to discuss the reporting of ontime aviation data, specifically the 

reporting of gate-departure time when 

an aircraft returns to the gate after an 

initial gate departure, but before the 

wheels-off time, and the need to report 

gate-departure time when the flight is 

ultimately cancelled. 

DATES: The meeting will be held June 

20, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the new DOT headquarters building at 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. The room 

number will be announced at a later 

date. Persons attending the public 

meeting must pass through the building 

security; therefore, we are requesting 

that you register for attendance by emailing or calling Ms. Sharon Herman at 

Sharon.herman@dot.gov or (202) 366–

9059. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline 

Information, RTS–42, Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

telephone number (202) 366–4387, fax 

number (202) 366–3383 or e-mail 

bernard.stankus@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The long tarmac delays that occurred 

in late 2006 and early 2007 focused 

public attention on the DOT’s Part 234 

Airline Service Quality Performance 

Reports. In reviewing taxi-out times, it 

was brought to our attention that the air 

carriers were inconsistent in reporting 

gate-departure times when an aircraft 

returned to the gate. Some carriers were 

reporting the initial gate departure time 

while others were reporting the 

‘‘second’’ gate departure time. There are 

advantages and disadvantages with both 

methods. 

By reporting the first gate-departure 

time, the DOT knows the time interval 

from when the aircraft was ready to 

depart and when the aircraft actually 

departed the airport (wheels-off time). 

However, many times the air carrier is 

credited with an on-time departure, 

when in reality the aircraft returned to 

the gate only to depart well after the 

scheduled departure time. Also, the 

taxi-out time is miscalculated, as the 

time that the aircraft was parked at the 

gate awaiting re-boarding is counted in 

the taxi out time. 

Reporting the second gate-departure 

time disguises inconveniences that the 

passengers endured by making it appear 

that they were on the aircraft for a much 

shorter duration before wheels-off time. 

Some have indicated that the taxi-out 

time for carriers reporting the second 

gate departure time is a more accurate 

assessment of taxi-out times. 

During recent snowstorms in the 

northeast, many flights departed the 

boarding gates only to spend many 

hours on the tarmac being de-iced and 

waiting for improved weather 

conditions. When the weather 

deteriorated, flights were cancelled. 

Historically, carriers have not reported 

gate-departure times when the flight is 

later cancelled. During this public 

meeting, the Department will attempt to 

clarify the reporting requirements for 

aircraft that return to departure gates. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2007. 

Donald W. Bright, 

Assistant Director, Airline Information, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

[FR Doc. E7–9209 Filed 5–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–HY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, and 

1918 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0044] 

RIN 1218–AC08 

Updating OSHA Standards Based on 

National Consensus Standards; 

Personal Protective Equipment 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Department of 

Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to revise 

the personal protective equipment (PPE) 

sections of its general industry, shipyard 

employment, longshoring, and marine 

terminals standards regarding the use of 

eye and face protective devices, head 

protection, and foot protection. OSHA is 

proposing to replace the existing 

references to specific consensus 

standards with performance language 

requiring PPE to be constructed in 

accordance with good design standards. 

The proposed revision includes 

guidance for determining what is a good 

design standard. In addition, OSHA is 

proposing to add non-mandatory 

appendices that list standards that 

constitute good design standards as 

used in the requirement. 

OSHA is also proposing to delete a 

paragraph in its ventilation standard 

that requires safety shoes to comply 

with a specific American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, 

and another paragraph in in its welding, 

cutting and brazing standard that 

requires filter lenses and plates in eye 

protective equipment to meet a test for 

transmission of radiant energy 

prescribed in another specific ANSI 

standard. In proposing to delete these 

paragraphs, OSHA intends for this 

safety equipment to comply with the 

applicable PPE design provisions in 

Subpart I of the general industry 

standards. 

These proposed revisions are a 

continuation of OSHA’s effort to update 

or remove references to specific 

consensus and industry standards 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS