Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50223

RHS regulations in 7 CFR part 1924, 

subpart A, contain requirements for 

construction which is funded with 

direct RHS loans, including direct single 

family housing loans. The regulation 

also applies to larger direct funded 

construction projects by other agencies 

in the Rural Development mission area. 

This regulation was originally 

promulgated on March 13, 1987 in 52 

FR 41833. One of the requirements in 

this regulation is that for construction 

work performed by the contract method 

(where the borrower contracts with a 

builder for the construction), the builder 

must obtain a surety bond guaranteeing 

payment and performance in the 

amount of the contract when the 

contract exceeds $100,000. This amount 

has remained unchanged since 1987. In 

1987, a single family house constructed 

and financed under the direct single 

family housing loan program would not 

exceed $100,000. Since 1987, 

construction costs for single family 

houses financed by RHS have 

dramatically increased so that now 

construction costs frequently exceed 

$100,000. The requirement that builders 

obtain surety bonds when the 

construction contract exceeds $100,000 

has made it difficult for contractors to 

compete for direct single family housing 

projects financed by RHS. While the 

regulation contains internal exceptions 

for the $100,000 requirement, none of 

these exceptions satisfactorily resolves 

the cost burden for builders of direct 

single family housing. 

The revision to 7 CFR 

1924.6(a)(3)(i)(A) will facilitate the 

process of construction by raising the 

threshold when the contractor must 

acquire surety bonds. The purpose of 

this regulation is to revise the existing 

surety bond requirement for direct 

funded single family housing. The new 

threshold will be when the contract 

exceeds the applicable RHS area single 

family housing loan limit as established 

pursuant to 7 CFR 3550.63 and the limit 

for any particular area is available from 

any Rural Development office. 

The provisions in 7 CFR 

1924.6(a)(3)(i) that require payment and 

performance bonds when construction 

is under this threshold amount remain 

unchanged. RHS has determined that 

changing the threshold for payment and 

performance bonds provides for more 

flexibility, is locality based, borrowers 

are adequately protected, and housing 

costs are reduced.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1924 

Agriculture, Construction 

management, Construction and repair, 

Energy conservation, Housing, Loan 

programs—Agriculture, Low and 

moderate income housing.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Chapter XVIII, Title 7, of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows:

PART 1924—CONSTRUCTION AND 

REPAIR 

1. The authority citation for part 1924 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 

U.S.C. 1480.

Subpart A—Planning and Performing 

Construction and Other Development 

2. Section 1924.6 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(3)(i)(A) to read as 

follows:

§ 1924.6 Performing development work.

* * * * *

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) The contract exceeds the 

applicable Rural Development Single 

Family Housing area loan limit as per 7 

CFR 3550.63. (Loan limits are available 

at the local Rural Development field 

office.)

* * * * *

Dated: July 28, 2005. 

Russell T. Davis, 

Administrator, Rural Housing Service.

[FR Doc. 05–17026 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21998; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–CE–40–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; GROB–

WERKE Model G120A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

GROB–WERKE Model G120A airplanes. 

This proposed AD would require you to 

inspect for signs of any chafing damage 

to the attachment cables of the switch 

panels below the left-hand instrument 

panel, any damaged switch below the 

switch panels of the left-hand 

instrument panel, any damaged (that is, 

sharp) edge of the support tray for the 

attachment cables of the switch panels 

below the left-hand instrument panel; 

correct any damage found during the 

inspection; and apply a layer of anti-rub 

(protective padding) strips to the edge of 

the support tray. This proposed AD 

results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the airworthiness authority for 

Germany. We are issuing this proposed 

AD to detect, correct, and prevent 

chafing of the cables against the rear lip 

of the tray that holds the switch panels. 

Chafing of the electrical cables could 

result in smoke or fire in the cockpit.

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by September 26, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following to 

submit comments 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–

001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

To get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD, contact 

GROB Luft-und Raumfahrt, 

Lettenbachstrasse 9, D–86874 

Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Federal 

Republic of Germany; telephone: 011 49 

8268 998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 

998200. 

To view the comments to this 

proposed AD, go to http://dms.dot.gov.

This is docket number FAA–2005–

21998; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–

40–AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4146; facsimile: 

(816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

How do I comment on this proposed 

AD? We invite you to submit any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments regarding this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include the docket 

50224 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

number, ‘‘FAA–2005–21998; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–CE–40–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. 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 

proposed rulemaking. Using the search 

function of our docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the comments 

received into 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.). This is 

docket number FAA–2005–21998; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–40–AD. 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit http:/

/dms.dot.gov.

Are there any specific portions of this 

proposed AD I should pay attention to?

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

this proposed AD. If you contact us 

through a nonwritten communication 

and that contact relates to a substantive 

part of this proposed AD, we will 

summarize the contact and place the 

summary in the docket. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD in light of those comments 

and contacts. 

Docket Information 

Where can I go to view the docket 

information? You may view the AD 

docket that contains the proposal, any 

comments received, and any final 

disposition in person at the DMS Docket 

Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

(eastern time), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The Docket 

Office (telephone 1–800–647–5227) is 

located on the plaza level of the 

Department of Transportation NASSIF 

Building at the street address stated in 

ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov. The comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

the DMS receives them. 

Discussion 

What events have caused this 

proposed AD? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt 

(LBA), which is the airworthiness 

authority for Germany, recently notified 

FAA that an unsafe condition may exist 

on all GROB Model G120A airplanes. 

The LBA reports that GROB received a 

report of smoke in the cockpit on a 

Model G120A airplane. The emergency 

avionic switch on the switch panel 

below the left-hand instrument panel 

was identified as the source of the 

smoke.

Chafing of the cables against the rear 

lip of the tray that holds the switch 

panels caused damage of the cable 

insulation. This damage resulted in 

arcing and melting of insulation. 

What is the potential impact if FAA 

took no action? Chafing of the electrical 

cables could result in smoke or fire in 

the cockpit. 

Is there service information that 

applies to this subject? GROB has issued 

Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–065, 

dated July 1, 2005. 

What are the provisions of this service 

information? The service bulletin 

includes procedures for:

—Inspecting attachment cable bundles 

of switches below the switch panels 

of the left-hand instrument panel for 

any signs of chafing damage; 

—Replacing attachment cable bundles if 

any chafing damage is found; 

—Inspecting for any damaged (that is, 

sharp) edge on the support tray for the 

attachment cables of switches below 

the switch panels of the left-hand 

instrument panel; 

—Grinding off any sharp edge on the 

support tray and cleaning thoroughly; 

—Replacing any damaged switch on 

switch panels of the left-hand 

instrument panel; and 

—Applying a layer of anti-rub strips 

(protective padding) to the edges of 

the panels.

What action did the LBA take? The 

LBA classified this service bulletin as 

mandatory and issued German AD 

Number D–2005–242, dated July 1, 

2005, to ensure the continued 

airworthiness of these airplanes in 

Germany. 

Did the LBA inform the United States 

under the bilateral airworthiness 

agreement? These GROB Model G120A 

airplanes are manufactured in Germany 

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, the LBA has kept us 

informed of the situation described 

above. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

What has FAA decided? We have 

examined the LBA’s findings, 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. 

Since the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

on other GROB Model G120A airplanes 

of the same type design that are 

registered in the United States, we are 

proposing AD action to detect, correct, 

and prevent chafing of the cables against 

the rear lip of the tray that holds the 

switch panels. Chafing of the electrical 

cables could result in smoke or fire in 

the cockpit. 

What would this proposed AD 

require? This proposed AD would 

require you to incorporate the actions in 

the previously-referenced service 

bulletin. 

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 

39 affect this proposed AD? On July 10, 

2002, we published a new version of 14 

CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 

2002), which governs FAA’s AD system. 

This regulation now includes material 

that relates to altered products, special 

flight permits, and alternative methods 

of compliance. This material previously 

was included in each individual AD. 

Since this material is included in 14 

CFR part 39, we will not include it in 

future AD actions. 

Costs of Compliance 

How many airplanes would this 

proposed AD impact? We estimate that 

this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes in 

the U.S. registry. 

What would be the cost impact of this 

proposed AD on owners/operators of the 

affected airplanes? We estimate the 

following costs to do this proposed 

inspection, replacement of any damaged 

cable bundle, damaged switch, or 

grinding off any sharp edge on the 

support tray, and installation of the 

protective padding:

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

Total cost on 

U.S. operators 

1 work hour × $65 an hour = $65 ................................................................................... $20 $85 $85 × 6 = $510 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50225

Authority for This Rulemaking 

What authority does FAA have for 

issuing this rulemaking action? 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 AD. 

Regulatory Findings 

Would this proposed AD impact 

various entities? We have 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.

Would this proposed AD involve a 

significant rule or regulatory action? For 

the reasons discussed above, I certify 

that this proposed AD: 

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 proposed AD (and 

other information as included in the 

Regulatory Evaluation) 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. 

Include ‘‘AD Docket FAA–2005–21998; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–40–AD’’

in your request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

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 airworthiness 

directive (AD):

GROB–WERKE: Docket No. FAA–2005–

21998; Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–

40–AD. 

When Is the Last Date I Can Submit 

Comments on This Proposed AD? 

(a) We must receive comments on this 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by 

September 26, 2005. 

What Other ADs Are Affected by This 

Action? 

(b) None. 

What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD? 

(c) This AD affects Model G120A airplanes, 

all serial numbers, that are certificated in any 

category. 

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in 

This AD? 

(d) This AD is the result of mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by the airworthiness authority for 

Germany. The actions specified in this AD 

are intended to detect, correct, and prevent 

chafing of the cables against the rear lip of 

the tray that holds the switch panels. Chafing 

of the electrical cables could result in smoke 

or fire in the cockpit. 

What Must I do To Address This Problem? 

(e) To address this problem, you must do 

the following:

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(1) Inspect for: 

(i) Any signs of chafing damage to the attachment cables of switches below the switch 

panels of the left-hand instrument panel;.

(ii) Any damaged switch on switch panels of 

the left-hand instrument panel; and 

(iii) Any damaged (that is, sharp) edge of the 

support tray for the attachment cables of 

switches below the switch panels of the lefthand instrument panel. 

Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

after the effective date of this AD, unless already done.

Follow GROB Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–

065 dated July 1, 2005. 

(2) Correct any damage found as a result of 

the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) 

of this AD.

(i) If you find any signs of chafing damage to 

the attachment cables of switches below the 

switch panels of the left-hand instrument 

panel, replace the attachment cables; 

(ii) If you find any damaged switch below the 

switch panels of the left-hand instrument 

panel, replace the switch; and 

(iii) If you find any damaged (that is, sharp) 

edge on the support tray for the attachment 

cables of switches below the switch panels 

of the left-hand instrument panel, grind off 

any sharp edges and clean thoroughly. 

Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.Follow GROB Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–

065 dated July 1, 2005. 

50226 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(3) Apply anti-rub (padding) strips to the edge 

of the support tray for the attachment cables 

of switches below the switch panels of the 

left-hand instrument panel.

Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. This 

modification is required even if damage is 

not found during the inspections.

Follow GROB Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–

065 dated July 1, 2005. 

May I Request an Alternative Method of 

Compliance? 

(f) You may request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD by following the procedures in 14 

CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, 

send your request to your principal 

inspector. The principal inspector may add 

comments and will send your request to the 

Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane 

Directorate, FAA. For information on any 

already approved alternative methods of 

compliance, contact Karl Schletzbaum, 

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4146; facsimile: (816) 329–4090. 

Is There Other Information That Relates to 

This Subject? 

(g) German AD Number D–2005–242, 

effective date: July 1, 2005, also addresses the 

subject of this AD. 

May I Get Copies of the Documents 

Referenced in This AD? 

(h) To get copies of the documents 

referenced in this AD, contact GROB Luftund Raumfahrt, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D–

86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Federal 

Republic of Germany; telephone: 011 49 8268 

998139; facsimile: 011 49 8268 998200. To 

view the AD docket, go to the Docket 

Management Facility; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, 

DC, or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

This is docket number FAA–2005–21998; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–CE–40–AD.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

19, 2005. 

Terry L. Chasteen, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 05–16986 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125 & 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2001–9483] 

RIN 2120–AG43 

Child Restraint Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a 

previously published Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that sought public 

comment on issues about the use of 

child restraint systems (CRSs) in 

aircraft. Specifically, we sought crash 

performance and ease-of-use 

information about existing and new 

automotive CRSs, when used in aircraft. 

We also sought information about the 

development of any new or improved 

CRSs designed exclusively for aircraft 

use. We are withdrawing the document 

to pursue other options that will 

mitigate the risk of child injuries and 

fatalities in aircraft.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Lauck Claussen, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Flight Standards 

Service, Certificate Management Office, 

2800 N. 44 Street, Suite 450, Phoenix, 

AZ 85008, telephone (602) 379–4350, email nancy.l.claussen@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 12, 1997, the White 

House Commission on Aviation Safety 

and Security (the Commission) issued a 

final report that included a 

recommendation on CRS use during 

flight. The following is an excerpt from 

the final report: 

‘‘The FAA should revise its 

regulations to require that all occupants 

be restrained during takeoff, landing, 

and turbulent conditions, and that all 

infants and small children below the 

weight of 40 pounds and under the 

height of 40 inches be restrained in an 

appropriate child restraint system, such 

as child safety seats, appropriate to their 

height and weight.’’

On February 18, 1998, the FAA 

published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to 

respond to the Commission’s 

recommendation (63 FR 8324). The FAA 

sought public comment on issues about 

the use of CRSs in aircraft during all 

phases of flight. The ANPRM did not 

propose specific regulatory changes. 

Rather, it asked for comments, data, and 

analysis to help the FAA decide the best 

regulatory approach to ensure the safety 

of children who are passengers in 

aircraft. 

The FAA has determined it is not 

appropriate to mandate the use of CRSs 

in aircraft now. We remain concerned 

that if we require children under 2 years 

old to be in an approved restraint 

system (which requires a passenger 

seat), affected operators might find it 

necessary to charge a fare for 

transporting these children. (Currently 

most, if not all, operators do not charge 

a fare for children under 2 years old 

who are held in an adult’s lap.) In turn, 

for economic reasons some adults might 

decide to drive in automobiles to their 

destinations rather than fly. The FAA is 

concerned because automobile injury 

and fatality rates are higher than aircraft 

injury and fatality rates. As a result, 

there would be a net increase in 

transportation injuries and fatalities as 

families opt, for economic reasons, to 

drive rather than fly to their 

destinations. 

1995 Report to Congress 

In 1994 Congress required the 

Secretary of Transportation, by Section 

522 of Public Law 103–305, to study the 

impact of mandating the use of CRSs for 

children under 2 years old on scheduled 

air carriers. The Secretary submitted a 

report of this study to Congress in 1995. 

The report estimated that, if a child 

restraint rule were imposed, 

approximately five infant lives would be 

saved aboard aircraft, and two major 

injuries and four minor injuries would 

be avoided over a 10-year period. The 

report also cautioned that this 

improvement would be offset by 

additional highway fatalities for airline 

passengers who chose to drive rather 

than purchase a seat for infants. Even if 

infant fares were only 25 percent of full 

fare, the report estimated that there 

would be diversion to cars and thus a 

net increase in fatalities over a 10-year 

period. 

Industry Action 

In July 1997, the air carrier industry 

took a positive step toward increasing 

infant air travel safety. At that time most 

major U.S. airlines introduced a general 

policy providing a 50 percent fare 

discount for domestic travel for at least 

one infant under 2 years old occupying 

a seat. Many commenters to the ANPRM 

noted that they have taken advantage of 

these infant fares.