### 43105 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules

before the introduction of this modification have not been systematically retrofitted.

In case of rudder bar locking adjustment tube breaking in flight when adjusting the rudder pedals position, it might interfere with the rudder pedals which could lead to rudder jam or a restricted rudder movement and consequently, to reduced control of the sailplane.

For the reason described above, this AD requires inspecting the rudder bar locking adjustment tube and, if necessary, replacing it. Actions and Compliance

(f) Unless already done, do the following actions in accordance with Socie  ́ te

 ́ Nouvelle Centrair Service Bulletin No. 101–29, dated July 30, 2009:

(1) Within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rudder bar locking adjustment tube to determine if it has been reinforced and to determine if it has been damaged.

(2) If the results of the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD show that the rudder bar locking adjustment tube has not been reinforced and is not damaged, replace it with a reinforced rudder bar locking adjustment tube, part number (P/N) $Y186A, at the next scheduled maintenance event after the effective date of this AD but no later than 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

(3) If the results of the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD show that the rudder bar locking adjustment tube has not been reinforced but is damaged, replace it with a reinforced rudder bar locking adjustment tube, P/N $Y186A, before further flight.

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 Office, 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: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4130; fax: (816) 329– 4090. Before using any approved AMOC on any glider 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010–0099, dated May 26, 2010; and Socie  ́ te

 ́ Nouvelle Centrair Service Bulletin No. 101–29, dated July 30, 2009, for related information.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 16,
2010. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–18021 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2010–0734; Directorate Identifier 2010–CE–036–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model**  **PIAGGIO P–180 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) originated 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:

Due to a manufacturing error, some rivets, required by drawings, were not installed in the joints between two ceiling beams and the rear pressurized bulkhead.

If left uncorrected, long term fatigue stress could locally weaken the structure, compromising the fuselage structural integrity. 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 September 7, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may send comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.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) 647–5527) is in the

**ADDRESSES** section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– 4145; fax: (816) 329–4090; e-mail: sarjapur.nagarajan@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
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–2010–0734; Directorate Identifier 2010–CE–036–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:// www.regulations.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 AD No.: 2010– 0126, dated June 23, 2010 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’ ), to correct an


### 43106 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules

unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Due to a manufacturing error, some rivets, required by drawings, were not installed in the joints between two ceiling beams and the rear pressurized bulkhead.

If left uncorrected, long term fatigue stress could locally weaken the structure, compromising the fuselage structural integrity.

This AD requires the accomplishment of Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) Service Bulletin (SB) 80–0268 original issue, which contains instructions to rework the affected area, thus restoring the fuselage design strength as well as the fatigue specifications of the structure. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. has issued Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80–0268, REV. 0, dated December 18, 2008. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of the 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 this 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 and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed 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 highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 30 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $15,900, or $2,650 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, Incorporation by reference, 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: Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A: Docket No. FAA–2010–0734; Directorate Identifier 2010–CE–036–AD.

Comments Due Date

(a) We must receive comments by September 7, 2010.

Affected ADs

(b) None.
Applicability

(c) This AD applies to PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model PIAGGIO P–180 airplanes, serial numbers 1166 through 1175, certificated in any category.
Subject

(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.

Reason

(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:

Due to a manufacturing error, some rivets, required by drawings, were not installed in the joints between two ceiling beams and the rear pressurized bulkhead.

If left uncorrected, long term fatigue stress could locally weaken the structure, compromising the fuselage structural integrity.

This AD requires the accomplishment of Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) Service Bulletin (SB) 80–0268 original issue, which contains instructions to rework the affected area, thus restoring the fuselage design strength as well as the fatigue specifications of the structure.
Actions and Compliance

(f) Unless already done, within 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, replace the rivets of the joint brackets on the right-hand and left-hand beam with ‘‘Hi-Lok’’ fasteners, following the accomplishment instructions of Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80–0268, REV. 0, dated December 18, 2008.

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:


### 43107 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 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; e-mail: sarjapur.nagarajan@faa.gov. 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 FAAapproved 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2010–0126, dated June 23, 2010; and Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service Bulletin (Mandatory) N.: 80–0268, REV. 0, dated December 18, 2008, for related information.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 15,
2010. Kim Smith, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–18019 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION** 

**16 CFR Parts 1508 and 1509**

**Full-Size and Non-Full Size Baby Cribs: Withdrawal of Advance Notice of**  **Proposed Rulemaking**

**AGENCY :**  Consumer Product Safety Commission.

**ACTION :**  Withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

**SUMMARY :**  The Consumer Product Safety Commission ( ‘‘ Commission’’ ) is terminating a proceeding for the possible amendment of the Commission’s standards for full-size cribs, codified at 16 CFR part 1508, and for non-full-size cribs, codified at 16 CFR part 1509 which the Commission began with publication of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on December 16, 1996, 61 FR 65997. On August 14, 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ( ‘‘ CPSIA’’ ) was enacted. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, which are to be ‘‘ substantially the same as ’’ applicable voluntary standards (or more stringent requirements if they would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , the Commission is proposing safety standards for full-size and non-full-size baby cribs in response to section 104(b) of the CPSIA. The crib standards the Commission is proposing include provisions that address the risks of injury identified in the 1996 ANPR.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Patricia Edwards, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504–7577; pedwards@cpsc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  A. Background

In 1973, the Commission issued mandatory regulations for full-size cribs, which were amended in 1982 and are codified at 16 CFR part 1508. In 1976, the Commission issued nearly identical regulations for non-full-size cribs, which were also amended in 1982, and are codified at 16 CFR part 1509. In 1996, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking ( ‘‘ANPR’’ ) which initiated a rulemaking proceeding for the possible amendment of the Commission’s crib regulations to address the risk of slats disengaging from cribs sides. 61 FR 65997 (Dec. 16, 1996). After publication of the ANPR, the Commission staff worked with the voluntary standards group, ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials), which added provisions in its standard for full-size baby cribs, ASTM F 1169, to address this hazard.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ( ‘‘ CPSIA’’

, Pub. L. 110–314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be ‘‘ substantially the same as ’’ applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , the Commission is issuing a proposed rule that would establish safety standards for full-size and non-full-size cribs that are substantially the same as voluntary standards ASTM F 1169–10, StandardConsumer Safety Specification for FullSize Baby Cribs, and ASTM F 406–10, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs. The Commission proposes to incorporate these ASTM standards by reference with certain modifications to strengthen them. The proposed standards, as modified, would includeprovisions in both the full-size and nonfull-size crib standards that address the risk of crib slat disengagement the Commission identified in the ANPR.

B. Withdrawal of the ANPR

The rulemaking that the Commission is now initiating under section 104(b) of the CPSIA proposes to establish new requirements for full-size and non-full size cribs that will include the requirements of the Commission’s existing regulations codified at 16 CFR parts 1508 and 1509 and additional requirements in the ASTM voluntary standards. Because these new crib standards will include performance tests to address the risk of crib slat disengagement, the Commission is withdrawing the ANPR published December 16, 1996, 61 FR 65997, and terminating that rulemaking.

Dated: July 14, 2010. Todd Stevenson, Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–17590 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6355–01–P**

**CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION** 

**16 CFR Parts 1508 and 1509**

**[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2010–0075]**

**Revocation of Requirements for Full Size Baby Cribs and Non-Full-Size**  **Baby Cribs**

**AGENCY :**  Consumer Product Safety Commission.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  Section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 ( ‘‘ CPSIA’’ ) requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission ( ‘‘ CPSC ’’ or ‘‘ Commission’’ ) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be

‘‘ substantially the same as ’’ applicable