Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 14097 

3Effective March 20, 2000, APHIS removed the 

Republic of Korea from the list of regions 

considered to be free of both rinderpest and FMD. 

substantial number of U.S. entities, large 

or small, because the volume of 

currently prohibited/restricted animals 

and animal products imported into the 

United States from the Republic of 

Korea is likely to be very small relative 

to overall U.S. supply of those 

commodities (production and net 

imports from all foreign sources). There 

are several reasons for this. First, the 

volume of U.S. imports from the 

Republic of Korea prior to March 20, 

2000, when that country was considered 

to be free of FMD and rinderpest, was 

negligible.3 During the 3-year period 

from 1997 to 1999, the United States did 

not import any reportable amounts of 

ruminants or fresh (chilled or frozen) 

meat or other products of ruminants 

from the Republic of Korea, other than 

1.3 metric tons of dairy products in 

1998. 

Second, the Republic of Korea 

produces less beef, milk, and pork than 

it consumes, and is therefore a net 

importer of these commodities. Given 

this fact, there would not be a 

significant volume of exports of those 

commodities to the United States. 

Finally, APHIS’ staff expects that 

Hanwoo beef, a premium-priced 

specialty meat produced from Korean 

native cattle, is likely to be the Republic 

of Korea’s primary export to the United 

States if the proposed rule becomes 

effective. Because of its premium price, 

the market for Hanwoo beef would be 

limited; it is likely to be sold to a niche 

market, such as Korean restaurants in 

the United States. 

Importers, brokers, and others that 

would import Hanwoo beef, and 

restaurants that would serve that 

product, are the U.S. entities most likely 

to be affected by the rule. They stand to 

benefit from the increased business 

activity. The number of these entities is 

unknown but it is likely to be very 

small, given the expected limited 

market for Hanwoo beef in the United 

States. The size of these entities is also 

unknown, although it is reasonable to 

assume that, as with U.S. businesses in 

general, most are small under the 

standards of the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. The proposed action 

should have no noticeable effect on U.S. 

beef producers, given the expected 

limited demand for Hanwoo beef. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry 

and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 

CFR part 94 as follows: 

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL 

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE 

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, 

CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND 

BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED 

AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781– 

7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.4. 

§ 94.1 [Amended] 

2. In § 94.1, paragraph (a)(2) is 

amended by adding the words 

‘‘Republic of Korea,’’ after the word 

‘‘Japan,’’. 

§ 94.11 [Amended] 

3. In § 94.11, paragraph (a) is 

amended by adding the words 

‘‘Republic of Korea,’’ after the word 

‘‘Japan,’’. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

March 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–7013 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0284; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–016–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER 

LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models Dornier 

228–100, Dornier 228–101, Dornier 

228–200, Dornier 228–201, Dornier 

228–202, and Dornier 228–212 

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 

supersede 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: 

The manufacturer reported findings of 

missing primer on the internal of the elevator 

and rudder of aircraft S/N 8200. The aircraft 

S/N 8200 was with RUAG for maintenance 

purposes. Investigation performed by RUAG 

showed that the paint removal procedure for 

the rudder and elevator was changed from a 

paint stripping with brush and scraper to a 

procedure where the parts were submerged 

in a tank filled with hot liquid stripper. The 

stripper is called TURCO 5669 from Henkel 

Surface Technologies. The stripping process 

is described in the Technical Process Bulletin 

No. 238799 dated 09/01/1999. This paint 

stripping process change was not 

communicated to and not approved by the 

TC-Holder. 

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 April 29, 2009. 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
14098 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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: Greg 

Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4130; 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–2009–0284; Directorate Identifier 

2009–CE–016–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 4, 2008, we issued AD 2008– 

08–15, Amendment 39–15467 (73 FR 

21220; April 21, 2008). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on the products listed 

above. 

Since we issued AD 2008–08–15, we 

have received new MCAI that changes 

the applicability and accomplishment 

instructions. 

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), 

which is the airworthiness authority for 

Germany, has issued AD D–2007– 

350R1, dated January 30, 2009 (referred 

to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

The manufacturer reported findings of 

missing primer on the internal of the elevator 

and rudder of aircraft S/N 8200. The aircraft 

S/N 8200 was with RUAG for maintenance 

purposes. Investigation performed by RUAG 

showed that the paint removal procedure for 

the rudder and elevator was changed from a 

paint stripping with brush and scraper to a 

procedure where the parts were submerged 

in a tank filled with hot liquid stripper. The 

stripper is called TURCO 5669 from Henkel 

Surface Technologies. The stripping process 

is described in the Technical Process Bulletin 

No. 238799 dated 09/01/1999. This paint 

stripping process change was not 

communicated to and not approved by the 

TC-Holder. 

The MCAI requires a detailed visual 

inspection of the inner structure of the 

rudder and elevator for signs of 

corrosion, de-bonded primer (yellowgreen), and any deviation of surface 

protection. If the inspection results 

show corrosion beyond the acceptable 

level or areas with de-bonded primer, 

the inspection results have to be 

reported to RUAG Aerospace Services 

GmbH for further decisions. If 

necessary, repair the affected parts in 

accordance with the applicable repair 

instruction obtained from RUAG 

Aerospace Services GmbH. You may 

obtain further information by examining 

the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology 

Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB– 

228–270, Rev. No. 1, dated November 

28, 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 

Based on the service information, we 

estimate that this proposed AD will 

affect 17 products of U.S. registry. We 

also estimate that it would take about 3 

work-hours per product to comply with 

the basic requirements of this proposed 

AD. The average labor rate is $80 per 

work-hour. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $4,080, or $240 per 

product. 

We have no way of determining the 

number of airplanes or the associated 

costs of any follow-on repairs or 

replacements that might be required by 

this proposed AD. 

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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 14099 

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 39–15467 (73 FR 

21220; April 21, 2008), and adding the 

following new AD: 

DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH: Docket No. 

FAA–2009–0284; Directorate Identifier 

2009–CE–016–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by April 29, 

2009. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2008–08–15, 

Amendment 39–15467 (73 FR 21220; April 

21, 2008). 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Dornier 228–100, 

Dornier 228–101, Dornier 228–200, Dornier 

228–201, Dornier 228–202, and Dornier 228– 

212 airplanes, all serial numbers, that: 

(1) Are certificated in any category; and 

(2) Have had the rudder and/or elevator 

replaced or repaired at Fairchild Dornier or 

RUAG between the year 2000 and 2005. The 

concerned rudder and elevator part numbers 

and serial numbers are listed on page 7 of 

RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology 

Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB–228– 

270, Rev. No. 1, dated November 28, 2008. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 51: Standard Practices/ 

Structures. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

The manufacturer reported findings of 

missing primer on the internal of the elevator 

and rudder of aircraft S/N 8200. The aircraft 

S/N 8200 was with RUAG for maintenance 

purposes. Investigation performed by RUAG 

showed that the paint removal procedure for 

the rudder and elevator was changed from a 

paint stripping with brush and scraper to a 

procedure where the parts were submerged 

in a tank filled with hot liquid stripper. The 

stripper is called TURCO 5669 from Henkel 

Surface Technologies. The stripping process 

is described in the Technical Process Bulletin 

No. 238799 dated 09/01/1999. This paint 

stripping process change was not 

communicated to and not approved by the 

TC-Holder. 

Corrosion damage can occur through 

insufficient surface protection. Consequently, 

the MCAI requires a detailed visual 

inspection of the inner structure of the 

rudder and elevator for signs of corrosion, debonded primer (yellow-green), and any 

deviation of surface protection. If the 

inspection results show corrosion beyond the 

acceptable level or areas with de-bonded 

primer, the inspection results have to be 

reported to RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH 

for further decisions. If necessary, repair the 

affected parts in accordance with the 

applicable repair instruction obtained from 

RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) Within 2 months after the effective date 

of this AD, do a detailed visual inspection on 

the inner structure of the rudder and elevator 

for signs of corrosion, debonded primer 

(yellow-green), and any other deviation of 

surface protection following RUAG 

Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 

Service Bulletin No. SB–228–270, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 28, 2008. 

(2) If you find corrosion or areas with 

debonded primer as a result of the inspection 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before 

further flight, do the following: 

(i) Report the inspection results to RUAG 

Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 

Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 

Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany, 

telephone: +49 (0) 8153–30–2280; fax: +49 (0) 

8153–30–3030 and request FAA-approved 

repair instructions following RUAG 

Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 

Service Bulletin No. SB–228–270, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 28, 2008. 

(ii) Repair corrosion following FAAapproved repair instructions obtained from 

RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH. 

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 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 German AD D–2007– 

350R1, dated January 30, 2009; and RUAG 

Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 

Service Bulletin No. SB–228–270, Rev. No. 1, 

dated November 28, 2008, for related 

information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 

24, 2009. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–6984 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

19 CFR Part 10 

[USCBP–2008–0105] 

RIN 1505–AC07 

Cost or Value of Foreign Repairs, 

Alterations, or Processing 

AGENCIES: Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security; Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 13, 2009 (74 FR 10849), that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS