### 34953 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules

certified. For purposes of this section, end product shall be defined as walnutpieces equal to or larger than eight sixtyfourths of an inch in diameter. Walnut meal shall be defined as walnut pieces smaller than eight sixty-fourths of an inch in diameter.

(1) End product. End product must be sized, inspected and certified, and the size must be noted on the inspection certificate. The end product quality must be equal to or better than the minimum requirements of U.S. Commercial grade as defined in the United States Standards for Shelled Walnuts (Juglans regia).

(2) Walnut meal. Walnut meal that is accumulated during the cutting or dicing of shelled walnuts to create end product must be presented with the smallest end product from that manufacturing run that is inspected and certified. If the end product meets the applicable U.S. Commercial grade requirements, the walnut meal accumulated during the manufacture of that end product shall be identified and referenced on a separate meal certificate

as ‘‘meal derived from walnut pieces that meet U.S. Commercial grade requirements. ’’ The certificate number of the smallest end product will be referenced on the meal certificate.

(3) Failed lots. If the end product fails to meet applicable U.S. Commercial grade requirements, the end product may be reconditioned, re-sampled, inspected again, and certified. However, the walnut meal accumulated during the manufacture of that end product shall be rejected and disposed of pursuant to the requirements of § 984.64.

Dated: June 11, 2010. Rayne Pegg, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–14845 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 21**

**Existence of Proposed Airworthiness Design Standards for Acceptance**  **Under the Primary Category Rule; Orlando Helicopter Airways (OHA),**  **Inc., Models Cessna 172I, 172K, 172L, and 172M** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Request for comments.

**SUMMARY :**  This notice announces the existence of and requests comments on the proposed airworthiness design standards for acceptance of the OHA, Inc., Models Cessna 172I, 172K, 172L, and 172M airplanes under the regulations for primary category aircraft.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send all comments to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate (ACE–111), Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. Leslie B. Taylor, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE–111), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA; telephone number (816) 329–4134, fax number (816) 329–4090, e-mail at leslie.b.taylor@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Any person may obtain a copy of this information by contacting the person named above under **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION CONTACT**

. Comments Invited

We invite interested parties to submit comments on the proposed airworthiness standards to the address specified above. Commenters must identify the OHA Models Cessna 172I, 172K, 172L, and 172M and submit comments to the address specified above. The FAA will consider all communications received on or before the closing date before issuing the final acceptance. The proposed airworthiness design standards and comments received may be inspected at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Standards Office (ACE–110), 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, except Federal holidays. Background

The ‘‘ primary’’ category for aircraft was created specifically for the simple, low performance personal aircraft. Section 21.17(f) provides a means for applicants to propose airworthiness standards for their particular primary category aircraft. The FAA procedure establishing appropriate airworthiness standards includes reviewing and possibly revising the applicant’s proposal, publication of the submittal in the Federal Register for public review and comment, and addressing the comments. After all necessary revisions, the standards are published as approved FAA airworthiness standards.

Accordingly, the applicant, OHA, Inc., has submitted a request to the FAA to include the following: Proposed Airworthiness Standards for Acceptance Under the Primary Category Rule For All Airplane Modifications and the Powerplant Installation

Part 3 of the Civil Air regulations (CAR 3), effective November 1, 1949, as amended by 3–1 through 3–12, except for § 3.415, Engines and § 3.416(a), Propellers; and 14 CFR part 23, §§ 23.603, 23.863, 23.907, 23.961, 23.1322 and 23.1359 (latest amendments through Amendment 23– 59) as applicable to these airplanes. For Engine Assembly Certification

Joint Aviation Requirements 22 (JAR 22), ‘‘ Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes, ’’ Change 5, dated October 28, 1995, Subpart H only. For Propeller Certification

14 CFR part 35 as amended through 35–8 except § 35.1 (or a propeller with an FAA type certificate may be used).

For Noise Standards

14 CFR part 36, Amendment 36–28, Appendix G.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 14, 2010. Sandra J. Campbell, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–14975 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2010–0463; Directorate Identifier 2010–CE–021–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Models GA8 and GA8–TC320**  **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 that would revise an existing AD. 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: Inspection of a high time


### 34954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules

aircraft has revealed cracks in the Horizontal Stabilizer rear spar splice plate and inboard main ribs around the area of the Horizontal Stabilizer rear pivot attachment. Additionally, failure of some attach bolts in service may be due to improper assembly. This amendment is issued to include an applicability matrix (Table 1, page 2) in the compliance section of the service bulletin for improved clarity. 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 August 5, 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 :**  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 :** 
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–2010–0463; Directorate Identifier 2010–CE–021–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:// 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

On April 20, 2010, we issued AD 2010–10–01, Amendment 39–16280 (75 FR 23577, May 4, 2010). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.

Since we issued AD 2010–10–01, the foreign authority has issued an amendment to include an applicability matrix in the compliance section of the manufacturer’s service bulletin for improved clarity. The FAA is proposing to revise this AD to allow the use of issue 6 or issue 5 of the service bulletin. An operator would be in compliance if the operator chose to only accomplish issue 5 of the SB. This proposed revision of the FAA’s AD will make the FAA AD more in line with the latest version of the received MCAI.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation authority for Australia, has issued AD/GA8/5, Amdt 4, dated May 11, 2010 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’ ), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Inspection of a high time aircraft has revealed cracks in the Horizontal Stabilizer rear spar splice plate and inboard main ribs around the area of the Horizontal Stabilizer rear pivot attachment. Additionally, failure of some attach bolts in service may be due to improper assembly.

This amendment is issued to include an applicability matrix (Table 1, page 2) in the compliance section of the service bulletin for improved clarity.

The previous amendment included reference to the GA8–TC 320 variant in the applicability section.

Amendment 2 was issued because the requirement document now contains an inspection for cracking in horizontal stabilizers which have load transferring fittings installed.

Previous amendments of this AD listed the AD requirements in full. Due to the extensive use of diagrams and photographs, it is no longer appropriate or practical to write the requirements of the service bulletin out in full in this AD. All requirements, accomplishment instructions and illustrations are contained in the service bulletin. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

Gippsland Aeronautics has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8– 2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010. 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 25 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour 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 $0 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,125, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $200, for a cost of $625 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.


### 34955 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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 removing Amendment 39–16280 (75 FR 23577, May 4, 2010), and adding the following new AD: GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd.: Docket No. FAA– 2010–0463; Directorate Identifier 2010– CE–021–AD.

Comments Due Date

(a) We must receive comments by August 5, 2010.

Affected ADs

(b) This AD revises AD 2010–10–01, Amendment 39–16280.
Applicability

(c) This AD applies to the following model and serial number airplanes, certificated in any category:

(1) Group 1 Airplanes (retains the actions and applicability from AD 2009–05–01): Model GA8 airplanes, serial numbers GA8– 00–004 and up; and

(2) Group 2 Airplanes: Model GA8–TC320 airplanes, all serial numbers.
Subject

(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

Reason

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

Inspection of a high time aircraft has revealed cracks in the Horizontal Stabiliser rear spar splice plate and inboard main ribs around the area of the Horizontal Stabiliser rear pivot attachment. Additionally, failure of some attach bolts in service may be due to improper assembly.

This amendment is issued to include an applicability matrix (Table 1, page 2) in the compliance section of the service bulletin for improved clarity.

The previous amendment included reference to the GA8–TC 320 variant in the applicability section.

Amendment 2 was issued because the requirement document now contains an inspection for cracking in horizontal stabilisers which have load transferring fittings installed.

Previous amendments of this AD listed the AD requirements in full. Due to the extensive use of diagrams and photographs, it is no longer appropriate or practical to write the requirements of the service bulletin out in full in this AD. All requirements, accomplishment instructions and illustrations are contained in the service bulletin.

The FAA is revising AD 2010–10–01 to allow the use of issue 6 or issue 5 of the service bulletin. An operator is in compliance if the operator chooses to only accomplish issue 5 of the SB. This proposed revision of the FAA’s AD will make the FAA AD more consistent with the latest version of the MCAI.
Actions and Compliance

(f) For Group 1 Airplanes: Unless already done, do the following actions: (1) Within the next 10 hours time-inservice (TIS) after March 2, 2009 (the effective date retained from AD 2009–05–01):

(i) For all aircraft not incorporating computer numeric control (CNC) machined elevator hinges, inspect and repair the left and right horizontal stabilizer rear pivot attachment installation following instruction

‘‘ 3. Rear Pivot Attachment Inspection, ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010; and,

(ii) For all aircraft, inspect the left and right rear attach bolt mating surfaces for damage or an out of square condition and replace the left and right rear attach bolts following instruction ‘‘ 5. Rear Attach Bolt Replacement, ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010. Reworking the mating surfaces by spotfacing is no longer acceptable. If the mating surfaces are damaged, not square, or were previously reworked by spotfacing the surface, replace the parts as specified in Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010.

(2) Within the next 10 hours TIS after March 2, 2009 (the effective date retained from AD 2009–05–01) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, for all aircraft:

(i) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer externally following instruction ‘‘ 2. External Inspection (Lower flange, Stabilizer rear spar), ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010; and

(ii) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer internally following instruction ‘‘4. Internal Inspection, ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010.

(3) If during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD any excessive local deflection or movement of the lower skin surrounding the lower pivot attachment, cracking, or working (loose) rivet is found, before further flight, obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer and incorporate this repair scheme. Due to FAA policy, the repair scheme/modification for crack damage must include an immediate repair of the crack. The repair scheme cannot be by repetitive inspection only. The repair scheme/modification may incorporate repetitive inspections in addition to the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Continued operational flight with un-repaired crack damage is not permitted.


### 34956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules

(g) For Group 2 Airplanes: Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1) Within the next 10 hours TIS after May 10, 2010 (the effective date retained from AD 2010–10–01):

(i) For all aircraft not incorporating computer numeric control (CNC) machined elevator hinges, inspect and repair the left and right horizontal stabilizer rear pivot attachment installation following instruction

‘‘ 3. Rear Pivot Attachment Inspection, ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010; and,

(ii) For all aircraft, inspect the left and right rear attach bolt mating surfaces for damage or an out of square condition and replace the left and right rear attach bolts following instruction ‘‘ 5. Rear Attach Bolt Replacement, ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010. Reworking the mating surfaces by spotfacing is no longer acceptable. If the mating surfaces are damaged, not square, or were previously reworked by spotfacing the surface, before further flight, replace the parts as specified in Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010.

(2) Within the next 10 hours TIS after May 10, 2010 (the effective date retained from AD 2010–10–01) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, for all aircraft:

(i) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer externally following instruction ‘‘ 2. External Inspection (Lower flange, Stabilizer rear spar), ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB– GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010; and

(ii) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer internally following instruction ‘‘4. Internal Inspection, ’’ of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; or Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010.

(3) If during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD any excessive local deflection or movement of the lower skin surrounding the lower pivot attachment, cracking, or working (loose) rivet is found, before further flight, obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer and incorporate this repair scheme. Due to FAA policy, the repair scheme/modification for crack damage must include an immediate repair of the crack. The repair scheme cannot be by repetitive inspection only. The repair scheme/modification may incorporate repetitive inspections in addition to the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. Continued operational flight with un-repaired crack damage is not permitted.

FAA AD Differences

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ or service information as follows:

(1) ‘‘Requirement: 1. Daily Inspection (Stabilizer attach bolt) ’’ of the service information requires a daily inspection of the stabilizer attach bolt. The daily inspection is not a requirement of this AD. Instead of the daily inspection, we require you to perform, within 10 hours TIS, ‘‘Requirement 3. Rear Pivot Attachment Inspection’’ and

‘‘Requirement 5. Rear Attachment Bolt Replacement’’ of the service information. Compliance with requirement 3. and 5. is a terminating action for the daily inspection, and we are requiring these within 10 hours TIS after the effective date of AD 2009–05– 01 for Group 1 airplanes and AD 2010–10– 01 for Group 2 airplanes.

(2) ‘‘Requirement: 2. External Inspection (Lower flange, Stabilizer rear spar) ’’ of the service information does not specify any action if excessive local deflection or movement of lower skin, cracking, or working (loose) rivet is found. We requireobtaining and incorporating an FAAapproved repair scheme from the manufacturer before further flight.

(3) The MCAI does not state if further flight with known cracks is allowed. FAA policy is to not allow further flight with known cracks in critical structure. We require that if any cracks are found when accomplishing the inspection required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(2) of this AD, you must repair the cracks before further flight.

(4) The service information does not state that parts with spotfaced nut and bolt mating surfaces require replacement. However, the service information no longer allows reworking of the mating surfaces by spotfacing. We require that if any nut and bolt surfaces were previously reworked by spotfacing, you must replace the parts.

Other FAA AD Provisions

(h) 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4059; 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

(i) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority AD No. AD/GA8/5, Amdt 4, dated May 11, 2010; Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002– 02, Issue 5, dated November 13, 2008; and Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB–GA8–2002–02, Issue 6, dated April 21, 2010, for related information.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 14, 2010. Sandra J. Campbell, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2010–14986 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2010–0632; Directorate Identifier 2010–CE–025–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Robert E. Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland DH.C1**  **Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A 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 all Robert E. Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the flap operating system for an unauthorized latch plate design installation. This proposed AD results from a report of a latch plate failing in service that was not made in accordance with the applicable de Havilland drawing. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct unauthorized latch plate design installation, which could result in an un-commanded retraction of the flaps. This failure could lead to a stall during a landing approach.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2010.